PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


"2c 


Shelf.^ 


Division  AZ)  O/v' C)\^  \ 

Section    J  .t^.>D\.h!-J,,, 
Number   ..V  »  ..-< 


M      A" 


s^    .» 


wM 


Jr    .k' 


^     ^ 


CS.Ctma.er.B.'E.T'-l 


Uonctoti ,  IjirngnuxTts  &  Co. 


i:av\-<'\\'elL£!r 


AN 


AMERICAN  COMMENTARY 


ON    THE 


NEW   TESTAMENT. 


EDITED  BY 

ALVAH  HOVEY,  D.D.,  LL.D. 


V  -5, 


PHILADELPHIA : 

AMERICAN   BAPTIST   PUBLICATION   SOCIETY, 

1420  Chestnut  Street. 


PREFACE. 


For  a  statement  of  the  purpose  and  plan  of  tliis  series  of  Commentaries  on  the 
New  Testament,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  last  part  of  the  General  Introduction, 
published  in  the  volume  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  for  a  more  particular  account 
of  the  sources  of  the  present  volume,  to  the  last  part  of  the  following  Intro- 
duction. Two  or  three  remarks  are  all  that  seem  to  be  required  in  the  way  of 
further  explanation. 

Whenever  the  words  of  another  writer  are  employed,  his  name  is  given, 
though  it  has  not  always  been  thought  advisable  to  mention  the  volume  and  page 
from  whicii  the  words  are  taken.  In  a  great  majority  of  cases  they  are  from 
Notes  on  the  particular  passage  under  examination.  Sentences  are  sometimes  put 
in  quotation  marks,  not  because  they  are  borrowed  from  another,  but  because  they 
are  meant  to  represent  in  paraphrase  the  words  of  Christ,  or  of  the  Evangelist,  in 
the  text  explained. 

For  critical  notes  upon  the  text  in  several  important  passages,  the  writer  is 
indebted  to  the  kindness  of  Prof.  John  A.  Broadus,  D.  D.,  who  is  preparing  the 
volume  on  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew.  These  Notes  have  been  inserted  in 
the  margin,  followed  by  the  letter  B.  They  are  uncommonly  clear  and  discrimi- 
nating, and  the  conclusions  which  they  reach  are  believed  to  be,  in  every  instance, 
correct.  The  judgment  of  one  who  has  given  special  attention  to  textual  criticism 
will  be  highly  valued  by  the  reader. 

To  the  preparation  of  this  Commentary,  the  writer  has  given  all  the  time  at 
his  command  for  such  labor,  during  many  years.  And  though  the  work  produced 
is  very  imperfect,  when  compared  with  his  own  conception  of  what  it  should  be, 
he  cannot  repress  the  hope  that  it  will  be  useful  to  some  who  love  "  the  spiritual 
Gospel."  Often  has  this  Gospel  appeared  to  him,  while  exploring  it,  like  the  land 
promised  to  the  Israelites  by  the  Lord — "  a  good  land,  a  land  of  brooks  of  water, 
of  fountains  and  depths  that  spring  out  of  valleys  and  hills ;  a  land  of  wheat,  and 


PREFACE. 


barley,  and  vines,  and  fig  trees,  and  pomegranates ;  a  land  of  olive  oil  and  honey ; 
a  land  wherein  thou  shalt  eat  bread  without  scarceness,  thou  shalt  not  lack  any- 
thing in  it."  (Deut.  8 :  7-9.)  Wells  of  purest  truth,  deeper  than  Jacob's  well  at 
Sychar,  are  in  this  Gospel,  and  the  interpreter  may  let  down  his  tiny  cup  a 
thousand  times,  with  perfect  confidence  that  it  will  always  return  filled  to  the  brim. 

May  the  Son  of  God,  whose  person  is  so  fully  revealed  in  this  Gospel,  accept 
the  humble  effort  which  has  been  made  to  expound  his  words,  and  by  means  of  it 
bring  a  blessing  to  the  hearts  of  his  people !  Aud  to  this  end,  may  the  reader 
fervently  pray  to  the  Father  of  lights,  "  Open  thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold 
wondrous  things  out  of  thy  law."     (Fs.  119  :  18.)  Alvah  Hovey. 

Newton  Theological  Institution,  Nov.  26,  1885. 


COMMENTARY 


ON   THE 


GOSPEL  OF  JOHN. 


BY 

ALVAH    HOVEY,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

AMERICAN    BAPTIST  PUBLICATION    SOCIETY, 
1420  Chestnut  Street. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the   year  1883,  by  the 

AMERICAN    BAPTIST   PUBLICATION    SOCIETY, 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN. 


For  reasons,  which  will  readily  occur  to  every  one  who  is  familiar  with  Biblical 
criticism  during  the  present  century,  an  Introduction  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  must  treat 
with  some  fullness  the  question  of  its  authorship.  If  the  Gospel  is  believed  to  have 
been  written  by  the  Apostle  John,  the  grounds  of  this  belief  should  be  clearly  stated, 
even  though  they  cannot  be  elaborately  defended  ;  and  if  this  ancient  belief  is  im- 
pugned and  rejected  by  any  one,  the  grounds  for  such  rejection  should  be  carefully 
explained.  We  propose  therefore  to  consider  (1)  the  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel ; 
(2)  its  trustworthiness  as  a  historical  record,  especially  as  a  record  of  the  discourses  of 
Jesus ;  (3)  the  time  and  place  of  its  composition  ;  (4)  the  occasion,  object,  and  plan  of 
the  work  ;  and  (5)  the  aim  and  sources  of  this  commentary. 

I.  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

It  has  been  the  common  belief  of  Christians  from  the  second  century  until  now  that 
the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written  by  John,  the  brother  of  James,  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.  This  belief  has  rested  upon  certain  indications  of  authorship  which 
the  Gospel  itself  affords,  and  upon  certain  passages  in  Christian  writings  of  an  early  age 
which  point  to  the  same  authorship.  First.  While  the  name  of  the  writer  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  Gospel,  he  that  "  beareth  witness  of  these  things,  and  wrote  these  things," 
is  plainly  declared  to  be  "the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,"  and  who  "also  leaned  on  his 
bosom  at  the  supper"  (ch.  21  :  20-24).  But  "the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,"  and  to 
whom  he  committed  his  mother  from  the  cross  as  to  a  son,  must  have  been  one  of  that 
inner  circle  of  three — Peter,  James,  and  John — whom  Jesus  honored  with  his  special 
confidence.  Now  Peter  is  distinguished  from  "the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved"  in  the 
passage  just  cited  (ch.  21  :  20-24),  as  well  as  in  others  (e.  7.,  13  :  23  sq. ;  20  :  2  sq.)  ;  and 
James,  the  brother  of  John,  was  slain  by  the  sword  at  the  command  of  Herod,  about 
A.  D.  40  (see  Acts  12  :  2),  long  before  this  Gospel  was  written.  Interpreters  are 
therefore  generally  agreed  in  saying  that,  if  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written  by  an 
apostle,  the  words  of  the  Gospel  itself  point  clearly  to  John  as  that  apostle.  Second. 
The  references  of  early  Christian  writers  to  this  Gospel  prove  that  they  either  knew,  or 
at  least  supposed,  it  to  be  a  work  of  the  Apostle  John.  These  references  are  so  con- 
clusive that  nearly  all  who  admit  the  Gospel  to  have  been  written  before  the  close  of  the 
first  century  hold  that  the  Apostle  John  was  its  author.  But  certain  modern  scholars 
of  much  learning  and  acuteness  have  denied  its  origin  in  the  first  century,  and  have 
attributed  it  to  some  unknown  writer  of  the  second  century.  Indeed,  nearly  all  the 
arguments  by  which  the  authorship  of  John  have  been  assailed  are  meant  to  prove  that 
it  could  not  have  been  written  by  any  immediate  follower  of  Christ.  We  propose  to 
look  first  at  the  external  testimonies  relating  to  the  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
and  then  at  the  internal  evidences. 

In  examining  the  external  evidences,  it  will  be  important  to  bear  in  mind  two  facts. 

7 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 


Firsts  that  the  early  Christian  writers,  who  were  contemporaneous  with  the  apostles 
during  a  part  of  their  lives,  make  use  of  the  New  Testament  in  a  very  informal  way, 
often  quoting  its  language  inexactly,  and  generally  neglecting  to  mention  the  writer 
or  book  from  which  they  quote  ;  and,  second,  that  they  quote  from  the  first  three 
Gospels  and  some  of  the  Epistles  more  frequently  than  from  the  Fourth  Gospel.  These 
facts  are  accounted  for  by  the  practical  necessity  of  quoting  largely  from  memory,  and 
by  the  earlier  and  wider  circulation  of  the  writings  more  frequently  used.  Yet  there  are 
traces  of  the  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  in  the  writings  ascribed  to  the  Apostolical  Fathers. 

For  if,  with  many  of  the  best  scholars,  we  assume  that  the  Shorter  Greek  recension 
of  the  Seven  Epistles  of  Ignatius  is,  for  the  most  part,  genuine,  there  are  passages  in 
those  letters  which  are  so  similar  to  certain  expressions  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  or  the  first 
Epistle  of  John,  that  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  them  without  supposing  that  Ignatius 
had  seen  the  latter.  Thus,  in  his  letter  to  the  Ephesians  (ch.  7),  he  speaks  of  Christ  as 
both  "originated  and  unoriginated,  God  incarnated,  true  Life  in  death,  both  from  Mary 
and  from  God,  first  passible,  and  then  impassible."  Yet  the  reminiscence  is  not  abso- 
lutely certain.  But,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (ch.  7),  he  writes:  "I  desire  the 
bread  of  God,  the  heavenly  bread,  the  bread  of  life,  which  is  the  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God,  who  was  afterwards  made  of  the  seed  of  David  and  Abraham  ;  and  I 
desire  the  drink  of  God,  his  blood,  which  is  incorruptible  love  and  perennial  life."  This 
language  seems  to  be  founded  on  the  sayings  of  Jesus  preserved  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
our  Gospel  (vs.  41-59).  So,  too,  in  his  letter  to  the  Church  in  Smyrna,  after  asserting 
that  Christ  had  suffered  in  the  flesh  (ch.  2),  he  adds  these  words  :  "  For  I  know  that 
soon  after  the  resurrection  he  was  in  the  flesh,  and  I  believe  that  he  is  so  still.  And 
when  he  came  to  Peter  and  those  about  him,  he  said  unto  them  :  '  Take  hold  of  me, 
handle  me,  and  see  that  I  am  not  an  incorporeal  spirit,  or  demon'  "  (ch.  3).  With  this 
compare  John  20  :  20-27,  and  1  John  1:1,  and  the  probability  that  Ignatius  had  seen 
both  the  Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  will  appear  strong.  Other  reminiscences  might  be 
adduced  from  this  writer,  who  died  not  later  than  A.  D.  115  ;  but  while  the  genuineness 
of  the  epistles  attributed  to  him  is  still  in  doubt,  the  value  of  their  testimony  is 
uncertain. 

In  the  Epistle  of  Poh/carp  to  the  Philippians,  written  about  A.  D.  116,  there  occurs 
the  following  passage  :  "  For  every  one  who  does  not  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  has  come 
in  the  flesh  is  antichrist"  (ch.  7).  And  we  readily  perceive  that  it  is  borrowed  from 
1  John  4  :  2,  3.  But  it  is  generally  admitted  that  whoever  wrote  the  First  Epistle  of 
John  was  also  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Hence,  if  one  of  these  writings  belongs 
to  the  first  centurj%  and  could  be  used  by  Polj^carp  in  A.  D.  116,  just  as  he  used  the 
Epistles  of  Paul,  it  is  extremely  probable  that  the  other  belongs  to  the  same  early  age. 
Indeed,  Canon  Lightfoot  regards  the  First  Epistle  of  John  as  a  sort  of  postscript  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel  (see  "Contemporary  Review"  for  1875,  p.  835,  sq.).  Polj^carp  was 
probably  not  less  than  thirty  j'ears  old  when  the  Apostle  John  died  at  Ephesus. 
Irenaeus  represents  him  as  one  who  had  known  the  apostle,  and  enjoyed  his  instruction. 
Thus  he  was  a  living  link,  connecting  the  apostolic  age  with  that  of  Justin  Martyr  and 
Iren^us  (Irenaeus  "Adv.  Hger.,"  III.  3,  and  Euseb.  "H.  E.,"  V.  20,  24). 

The  five  books  of  Papia%  entitled,  "Interpretation  of  the  Oracles  of  the  Lord," 
have  all  perished  except  a  few  brief  extracts  made  by  Irenaeus  and  Eusebius,  or  Christian 
writers  of  a  later  age.  Of  Papias  himself  Irenasus  speaks  with  uniform  respect,  calling 
him  in  one  place,  "  Papias,  a  man  of  the  olden  time,  the  hearer  of  John  and  companion 
of  Polycarp"  ("Adv.  Hter,"  III,  33.  3).     Eusebius  thinks  that  his  "understanding  was 


INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL. 


very  small''  ("H.  E."  III.  39),  probably  because  of  his  adhesion  to  Chiliastic  views, 
rejected  by  the  father  of  church  history.  In  his  "Chronic.  Ad.  Olyiu."  220,  he  states 
that  "  Irenseus  and  others  relate  that  John  the  theologian  and  apostle  continued  in  life 
until  the  times  of  Trajan"  {x.  D.  98),  and  that  "  Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  and 
Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  were  well  known  as  his  hearers  "•  (conip.  "  H.  E. "  III.  40). 
In  view  of  all  the  facts  accessible  to  scholars,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  Papias  lived  from 
about  A.  D.  70  to  about  A.  D.  150,  and  that  any  use  of  the  New  Testament  writings, 
or  reference  to  them,  which  he  makes,  is  worthy  of  close  examination.  But  Euscbius, 
who  had  read  his  "five  books,"  affirms  that  "  he  made  use  of  testimonies  from  the  First 
Epistle  of  John,  and  likewise  from  that  of  Peter"  ("H.  E."  III.  39),  which  shows  the 
existence  of  John's  First  Epistle  in  the  first  part  of  the  second  century.  It  also  shows 
that  Papias  considered  the  words  of  the  Epistle  "testimonies"  (naprvpCaii)  to  the  truth 
by  a  proper  witness.  Moreover,  as  we  have  remarked,  the  existence  gf  the  Pipistlc  at 
this  early  date  must  be  accepted  as  probable  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  also  ;  for  they  were  both  written  by  the  same  man. 

But  if  Papias  had  the  Fourth  Gospel,  he  probably  made  use  of  it  in  his  four  books 
entitled,  "  Interpretation  of  Dominican  Oracles  ";  perhaps  he  took  from  it  many  of  the 
Oracles  which  he  explained.  Why  then  did  Eusebius  fail  to  mention  his  use  of  the 
Gospel  ?  Because  the  purpose  which  he  sought  to  accomplish  did  not  require  him  to  do 
this.  By  a  critical  study  of  the  prefatory  statements  of  Eusebius  concerning  his 
citation  of  early  testimonies  relating  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  Prof  Light- 
foot  has  established  the  following  propositions  :  (1)  "  His  main  object  was  to  give  such 
information  as  might  assist  in  forming  correct  views  respecting  the  Canon  of  Scripture. 
(2)  He  was  indiiferent  to  any  quotations  or  references  which  went  towards  establishing 
the  canonicity  of  those  books  which  had  never  been  disputed  in  the  church.  Even 
when  the  quotation  was  direct  and  by  name,  it  had  no  value  for  him.  (3)  To  this  class 
belonged  (i)  The  Four  Gospels;  (ii)  the  Acts;  (iii)  the  thirteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul. 
(4)  As  regards  these,  he  contents  himself  with  preserving  an jf  anecdotes  which  he  may 
have  found  illustrating  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  written  .  .  .  (5)  The 
Catholic  Epistles  lie  on  the  border-land  .  .  .  between  the  universally  acknowledged  and 
the  disputed  books,"  etc.  ("  Contemporary  Review  "  for  1875,  p.  179,  sq.).  Hence  the 
circumstance  that  Eusebius  reckons  the  Four  Gospels  among  the  books  universally 
received  is  a  sufficient  reason  why  he  should  not  have  called  attention  to  the  use  of  them 
by  Papias — to  say  nothing  of  the  probability  that  the  whole  work  of  Papias  was  an 
exposition  of  them. 

Again,  Westcott  refers  to  a  passage  in  Irengeus  where  the  testimony  of  "the  elders  ' 
is  adduced,  and  then,  a  little  after,  the  same  testimony  is  said  to  be  from  the  fourth 
book  of  Papias.  He  therefore  supposes  it  probable  that  another  citation  from  "the 
Elders"  by  Irenseus,  containing  a  part  of  John  14  :  2 — viz.,  "m  mj/  Father's  house  are 
many  mansions'' — is  taken  from  the  work  of  Papias.  (See  Irengeus  "Adv.  Haer." 
V.  36.) 

About  the  middle  of  the  second  century  Justin  Martyr,  who,  in  his  journej^s,  visited 
Ephesus,  Alexandria,  and  Rome,  refers  many  times  to  certain  writings  which  he  calls 
"Memorabilia  of  the  Apostles"  ("Dial,  with  Trypho  "  cc.  100,  101,  103,  104,  106,  88), 
"The  MemorabiUa  of  the  Apostles  which  are  called  Gospels"  ("Apol."  I.  c.  66),  and 
"  Memorabilia  which  were  composed  by  his  apostles,  and  by  those  who  followed  with  them 
("Dial,  with  Trypho"  cc.  103,  106).  This  last  expression  may  be  compared  with  the 
words  of  Tcrtullian  :  "We  have  established  this,  first  of  all,  that  the  Gospel  Instrument 


10  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 


has  for  its  authors  apostles,  on  whom  this  office  of  promulgating  the  Gospel  was  imposed 
by  the  Lord  himself;  and  if  also  apostolic  men,  yet  these  not  alone,  but  with  apostles 
and  after  apostles"  ("Adv.  Marc."  IV.  2).  It  is  observable  in  both  these  passages  that 
the  word  referring  to  apostles,  as  well  as  the  word  referring  to  their  companions,  is 
plural ;  and  it  cannot  be  reasonably  doubted  that  by  the  former  were  intended  Matthew 
and  John,  by  the  latter  Mark  and  Luke.  It  may  also  be  noticed  that,  according  to 
Justin,  these  Memorabilia  or  Gospels  were  read  in  his  day,  along  with  the  writings  of 
the  prophets,  in  the  public  worship  of  God  ("Apol."  I.  67). 

But  the  following  passage  in  his  description  of  the  rite  of  Christian  baptism  deserves 
particular  attention  :  "After  this  they  (t.  e.,  the  candidates)  are  led  by  us  where  there  is 
water,  and  are  regenerated  after  the  same  manner  in  which  we  were  regenerated  :  for 
upon  the  name  of  the  Father  of  all  and  Sovereign  God,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  there  receive  the  bath  in  the  water  ;  for  Christ  also 
said  :  Except  ye  he  horn  again,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  it  is 
evident  to  all  that  those  who  have  been  once  born  cannot  enter  into  the  wombs  of  those 
who  bore  them,"  etc.  ("Apol."  I.  61  ;  compare  John  3  :  3  sq.).  Justin,  it  is  true,  does 
not  quote  the  precise  words  of  Christ  as  recorded  in  the  Fourth  Gospel ;  but,  from  his 
customary  method  of  citing  passages  from  Scripture,  there  is  ample  reason  to  believe 
that  he  had  read  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  that  he  intended  to  give  the  words  of  Christ  to 
Nicodemus.  Especially  evident  is  this  from  the  reference  which  he  makes  to  the 
language  of  Nicodemus.  'For  an  elaborate  and  conclusive  examination  of  this  passage, 
the  reader  is  referred  to  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot's  "Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel" 
(pp.  29-41).  His  conclusion  is  stated  in  the  following  moderate,  but  unhesitating, 
terms:  "It  has  been  shown,  I  trust,  that  in  this  question  of  the  language  of  Christ 
respecting  regeneration,  the  verbal  differences  between  Justin  and  John  are  not  such  as 
to  render  it  improbable  that  the  former  borrowed  from  the  latter.  The  variations  of 
phraseology  are  easily  accounted  for,  and  are  matched  by  similar  variations  in  writers 
who  unquestionably  used  the  Gospel  of  John.  The  positive  reasons  for  believing  that 
Justin  derived  his  quotation  from  this  source  are,  (1)  the  fact  that  in  no  other  report  of 
the  teaching  of  Christ  except  that  of  John  do  we  find  this  figure  of  the  new  birth ; 
(2)  the  insistance  in  both  Justin  and  John  on  the  necessity  of  the  new  birth  in  order  to 
an  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  (3)  its  mention  in  both  in  connection  with 
baptism  ;  (4)  and  last  and  most  important  of  all,  the  fact  that  Justin's  remark  on  the 
impossibility  of  a  second  natural  birth  is  such  a  platitude  in  the  form  in  which  he 
presents  it,  that  we  cannot  regard  it  as  original.  We  can  only  explain  its  introduction 
by  supposing  that  the  language  of  Christ  which  he  quotes  was  strongly  associated  in 
his  memory  with  the  question  of  Nicodemus  as  recorded  by  John." 

Moreover  Justin's  doctrine  of  the  Logos  presupposes  a  knowledge  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  A  careful  comparison  of  his  doctrine  with  that  of  Philo,  will  reveal  a  verj^  im- 
portant difference.  For  Justin  teaches  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  in  a  great  number 
of  passages  (e.  g.  "Apol"  L  32,  66;  "Dial,  with  Trypho "  45,  84,  87,  100;  also 
"Apol."  I.  5,  23,  42,  50,  53,  63;  "Apol"  II.  13;  "Dial,  with  Try."  48,  57,  64,  67,  68, 
76,  85,  101,  125),  while  this  doctrine  is  inconsistent  with  the  teaching  of  Philo.  Be- 
sides, it  has  been  clearly  pointed  out  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  in  Justin  is  not 
so  simple  as  that  in  the  Fourth  Gospel — a  circumstance  which  proves  that  Justin  bor- 
rowed from  the  Gospel,  and  not  the  Gospel  from  Justin.  Still  further,  it  is  noticeable 
that  Justin  refers  to  the  ' '  Memorabilia  "  as  teaching  that  Christ  as  Logos  was  the  only- 
hegotten  Son  of  God,  a  title  which  is  applied  to  him  by  the  Fourth  Gospel  only  (see 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  11 


"Dial,  with  Try."  105).  For  other  passages  which  confirm  the  view  that  Justin  was 
famiUar  with  this  Gospel,  reference  may  be  made  to  the  work  of  Dr.  Ezra  Abbott,  cited 
above.  The  first  Apology  of  Justin  is  now  supposed  to  have  been  written  about  the  year 
146  or  147,  and  his  other  writings  a  few  years  later. 

Here  we  may  also  speak  of  latian,  the  Assyrian,  who  was  for  a  time  a  disciple  of 

Justin,  and  whose  literary  activity  has  been  assigned  to  the  period  between  A.  D.  ]55- 

170.      In  his  "  0  ratio  ad  Graecos,"  we  find  these  words:  "Do  not  hate  us  being  such 

persons,  but  dismissing  the  demons,  follow  the  only  true  God.      'All  these  things  are  by 

him,  and  without  him  not  one  thing  has  been  made'  "  (p.  158).      "And  this,  then,  is 

that  which  is  said  :   '  The  darkness  comprehendeth  not  the  light.      The  Word  indeed  is 

the  light  of  God'"  (p.  152).      With  these  and  other  passages  must  be  combined  the 

testimony  of  Eusebius  ("  H.   E."  IV.  29).      Speaking  of  the  Severians,  he  uses  this 

language:  "These  indeed  make  use  of  the  Law  and  Prophets  and   Gos^pels,  giving  a 

peculiar  interpretation  to  the  passages  of  the  sacred  writings,  but  they  abuse  Paul  the 

Apostle,  and  set  aside  his  Epistles ;  neither  do  they  receive  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

But  their  chief  and  founder,  Tatian,  having  formed  a  certain  body  and  collection  of 

Gospels,  I  know  not  how,  has  given  it  this  title,  '  Diatessaron,'  that  is,  the  'Gospel  of 

the  Four,'  or,  the  Gospel  formed  of  the  Four  ;  which  is  in  the  possession  of  some  even 

now."      The  expression,  "I  know  not  how,"  only  implies  that  the  plan  of  the  wort 

seemed  strange  to  Eusebius,  but  does  not  mean,  as  some  have  thought,   that  he  had 

never  seen  it.     Tatian' s  work  was  [either]  a  harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels,  or  a  single 

Gospel  uniting  in  itself  the  statements  of  the  Four.     Theodoret,  in  his  work  on  Haere- 

ses(Fab.  i.  20),  says  that  "he  found  more  than  two  hundred  copies  of  the  book,  held 

in  esteem  in  his  diocese,  and  substituted  for  it  copies  of  our  own  Gospels."     Theodoret 

was  Bishop  of  Cyrus  in  Syria,   from  about  A.   D.   420,  until  his  death,  in  a.  d.  457. 

"  His  objection  to  Tatian's  book  is  founded  on  the  absence  of  the  genealogies  ;  and  he 

seems  to  have  known  no  other  fault  "  (Charteris).     There   is  no  evidence  that  any  other 

Gospels  than  the  four  which  we  now  have,  were  in  circulation  among  the  churches  about 

the  middle  of  the  second  century,  unless  we  except  the  so-called  Gospel  according  to  the 

Hebrews,   "which,  in  its  primitive  form,   may  have  been  the  Hebrew  original  from 

which  our  present  Greek  Gospel,   ascribed  to  Matthew,  was  mainly  derived."   (Ezra 

Abbot).      And  the  hypothesis  that  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  was  used  by 

Tatian,  instead  of  our  Fourth  Gospel,  is  destitute  of  any  historical  foundation.      As  to 

the  Apocryphal  Gospels,  they  were  not  occupied  with  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus,  and 

were  justly  rejected  from  the  first  as  unworthy  of  confidence. 

Athenagoras,  "an  Athenian,  a  philosopher,  and  a  Christian, "offered  his  "Embassy" 
or  Apology  to  the  Emperors  Marcus  Aurelius  Antoninus,  and  Lucius  Aurelius  Com- 
modus,  in  A.  D.  176  or  177.  In  this  Apology  he  says:  "But  the  Son  of  God  is  the 
Logos  of  the  Father  in  idea  and  energy ;  for  of  him  and  through  him  were  all  things 
made,  the  Father  and  the  Son  being  one.  But  the  Son  being  in  the  Father  and  the 
Father  in  the  Son,  by  the  oneness  and  power  of  the  Spirit,  the  Son  of  God  is  the 
Father's  Reason  and  Word."  (Compare  John  1  :  1-3  ;  17  :  21-23).  Again,  "For  from 
the  beginning  God  himself,  being  eternal  Reason,  had  in  himself  the  Logos,  since  he 
was  eternally  rational."  (John  1  :  1  sq.)  This  attempt  to  express  in  a  semi-philo- 
sophical way  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  at  least  the  relation  of  the  eternal  Word 
to  the  Father,  is  evidently  founded  on  the  language  of  John. 

Contemporary  with  Athenagoras  was  Theophihis,  bishop,  or  pastor,  of  Antioch 
from  A.  D.  169,  onward.     Writing  to  Autolychus  he  uses  these  words  :     "Whence  the 


12  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE   GOSPEL. 


Holy  Scriptures,  and  all  those  moved  by  the  Spirit  teach,  [one]  of  whom,  John,  says  : 
'In  the  beginTiing  was  the  Word  ;  and  the  Word  was  with  God';  showing  that  at  the 
first  God  was  alone  and  in  him  was  the  Word.  Then  he  says  :  'And  the  Word  was 
God.  All  things  were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was  not  anything  made.'" 
(See  John  1  :  1-3).  Jerome  informs  us  ( "  De  viris  ill. , ' '  XXV. ,  and  ' '  Ej).  ad  Algasiam ' ' ) 
that  he  wrote  a  harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels  with  a  commentary  on  the  same,  and  Bleek 
justly  observes:  "Now  this  fact,  merely,  that  soon  after  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  more  than  one  Christian  scholar  undertook  the  task  of  treating  our  Four 
Gospels  synoptically  and  in  a  Harmony,  shows  that  these  Gospels  must  already  have 
been. held  in  high  repute  in  the  church,  as  distinguished  from  and  above  other  writings 
of  a  similar  kind  ;  and  the  Fourth  Gospel,  in  particular,  could  not  have  been  thus 
esteemed,  if  it  had  not  already  been  recognized  by  the  church  for  a  considerable  time 
as  a  genuine  and  apostolical  work. 

To  the  same  period  belongs  the  Muratorian  Fragment  on  the  Canon,  which  has  the 
following  passage:  "Of  the  Fourth  of  the  Gospels  John,  one  of  the  disciples  [is 
author].  Entreated  by  his  fellow-disciples  and  his  bishops,  John  said  :  '  Fast  with 
me  three  days  from  this  time,  and  whatever  shall  be  revealed  to  each  one  of  us  let  us 
relate  to  one  another.'  On  the  same  night  it  was  revealed  to  Andrew,  one  of  the 
apostles,  that  John  should  relate  all  things  in  his  own  name,  subject  to  the  revision 
of  all,"  etc.  (See  the  "  Canon  Muritorianus,  the  earliest  Catalogue  of  the  Books  of  the 
New  Testament,  edited  with  Notes  and  a  Facsimile  of  the  JNIS.  in  the  Ambrosian 
Library  at  Milan,"  by  S.  P.  Tregelles,  1867).  How  much  of  truth  or  error  maybe  in 
the  circumstances  here  related,  we  may  find  it  difficult  to  decide  ;  but  the  testimony  of 
the  Fragment  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  unambiguous,  agreeing  with 
all  other  indications  of  the  second  century. 

Prof  Lightfoot  has  examined,  with  great  care,  the  brief  extracts  which  have  been 
preserved  from  such  writers  as  3felito,  Bishop  of  Sardis,  and  Claudius  Apolliaaris, 
Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  who  flourished  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century ;  but  we 
must  content  ourselves  with  only  a  reference  to  his  instructive  article  ("  Cont.  Rev."  for 
1876,  pp.  471-496).  His  concluding  paragraph  may  be  quoted  in  part,  as  it  describes 
the  evidence  gleaned  by  him  from  "The  School  of  St.  John  in  their  Asiatic  home." 
"Out  of  a  very  extensive  literature,  by  which  this  school  was  once  represented,  the 
extant  remains  are  miserably  few  and  fragmentary ;  but  the  evidence  yielded  by  these 
meagre  relics  is  decidedly  greater,  in  proportion  to  their  extent,  than  we  had  reason  to 
expect.  As  regards  the  Fourth  Gospel,  this  is  especially  the  case.  If  the  same  amount 
of  written  matter — occupying  a  very  few  pages  in  all — were  extracted  accidentally  from 
the  current  theological  literature  of  our  own  day,  the  chances,  unless  I  am  mistaken, 
would  be  strongly  against  our  finding  so  many  indications  of  the  use  of  this  Gospel.  In 
every  one  of  the  writers,  from  Polycarp  and  Papias  to  Polycrates,  we  have  observed 
phenomena  which  bear  witness  directly  or  indirectly,  and  with  different  degrees  of  dis- 
tinctness, to  its  recognition.  It  is  quite  possible  for  critical  ingenuity  to  find  a  reason  for 
discrediting  each  instance  in  turn.  .  .  .  By  a  sufficient  number  of  assumptions,  which 
lie  beyond  the  range  of  verification,  the  evidence  may  be  set  aside.  But  the  early  ex- 
istence and  recognition  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  the  one  simple  postulate  which  explains 
all  facts."  (Id.  p.  495). 

Irenceus,  who  flourished  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  speaks  in  extcnso 
of  the  Four  Gospels,  naming  their  writers,  and  affirming  that  they  were  received  as 
authoritative    documents    by  heretics    as  well  as  orthodox   Christians.      Thus    "the 


INTEODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  13 

Ebionites,"  he  saj's,  "made  use  of  the  Gospel  by  Matthew,  and  Marcion  of  that  by 
Luke,  though  with  some  oiuissions,  while  those  who  separate  Jesus  from  Christ,  saying, 
that  Christ  remained  impassible,  though  Jesus  suffered  death,  prefer  the  Gospel  by 
Mark,  and  the  followers  of  Valentinus  use  that  of  John."  (Quoted  ad  sensam).  Indeed, 
he  argues,  fancifully  yet  strenuously,  that  in  the  fitness  of  things  the  gospel  record 
must  be  fourfold.  ' '  For  as  there  are  four  quarters  of  the  earth  over  which  the  church 
is  scattered,  and  also  four  universal  winds,  so  tlie  gospel  which,  with  the  Spirit,  is  the 
pillar  and  support  of  the  church,  ought  to  have  four  pillars,  breathing  from  all  direc- 
tions immortality,  and  vivifying  men"  ('/Adv.  Haer."  iii.  11,  7  sq.). 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  was  a  contemporary  of  Irenaeus  (flor.  A.  D.192),  writes 
concerning  a  saying  ascribed  to  the  Lord,  that  "we  do  not  have  it  in  the  Four  Go.<ipcIs 
that  have  been  handed  down  to  us,  but  in  that  according  to  the  Hebrews"  ("Strom." 
iii,  553).  In  another  work,  as  quoted  by  Euscbius("H.  E."  VI.  14),  Clement  states 
the  tradition  of  the  ancient  presbyters  concerning  the  order  of  the  Gospels  containing 
the  genealogies,  which  is  as  follows:  "They  were  wont  to  say  that  the  Gospels 
containing  the  genealogies  were  written  before  the  others  ,  .  .  but  that  John,  last  of 
all,  perceiving  that  what  had  respect  to  the  natural  [or  bodily  life  of  (Jhrist]  hud  been 
made  manifest  in  the  Gospels,  and  being  encouraged  by  his  familiar  friends,  as  well  as 
divinely  moved  by  the  Spirit,  made  a  spiritual  Gospel."  This  statement  has  distinct 
points  of  resemblance  to  the  one  cited  above  from  the  "Fragment  on  the  Canon" 
discovered  by  Muratori. 

Tertidlian,  of  North  Africa,  another  contemporary  of  Irenaeus,  remarks  as  follows 
in  his  treatise  against  Marcion  (IV.  2) :  "We  maintain,  first  of  all,  that  the  Evangelical 
Instrument  has  for  its  authors  apostles,  on  whom  this  office  of  pi'omulgating  the  Gospel 
was  imposed  by  the  Lord  himself:  if  also  apostolic  men  [t.  e. ,  associates  of  apostles], 
yet  not  these  alone,  but  with  apostles  and  after  apostles.  For  the  preaching  of  disciples 
might  have  been  suspected  of  a  desire  for  glory,  if  the  authority  of  masters,  yea,  of 
Christ,  who  made  the  apostles  masters,  did  not  support  it.  In  fact,  John  and  Matthew, 
who  were  apostles  (lit.  of  the  apostles),  implant  in  us  faith  ;  Luke  and  Mark,  who  were 
apostolic  men,  renew  it."  Again,  having  shown  that  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  was 
received  by  all  the  principal  churches,  TertuUian  proceeds  thus  :  "The  same  authority 
of  apostolic  churches  endorses  also  other  Gospels  which  we  receive  through  them  and 
on  account  of  them — I  mean  those  of  John  and  Matthew  ;  while  that  also  which  Mark 
published  may  be  ascribed  to  Peter,  whose  interpreter  Mark  was.  Moreover,  they  are 
accustomed  to  ascribe  the  Digest  of  Luke  to  Paul "  ("Adv.  Marcionem  "  IV.  2,  5). 

Origen,  the  greatest  Biblical  scholar  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Church,  began  his  work  as 
a  teacher  in  Alexandria,  about  A.  D.  203.  A  part  of  his  extended  commentary  on  the 
Fourth  Gospel  has  come  down  to  us  in  the  Greek  original ;  and  in  it  he  says  :  "For  one 
may  also  venture  to  say  that  the  Gospel  is  the  first-fruits  of  all  the  Scriptures.  .  .  .  But 
we  must  know  that  the  first-fruits  and  the  first  product  are  not  the  same.  For  the  'first- 
fruits  '  are  ofiered  after  all  the  fruits,  but  the  first  product  before  all.  Therefore  of  the 
Scriptures  in  circulation,  and  believed  to  be  divine  in  all  the  churches,  one  would  not  err 
in  saying  that  the  law  of  Moses  was  the  first  product,  but  the  Gospel  the  first-fruits  ;  for, 
after  all  the  fruits  of  the  prophets  who  were  until  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  perfect  Word 
sprang  up  "  (Tomus  I.  4).  Again,  speaking  of  the  Four  Gospels  and  their  distinctive 
aims,  he  says  that  Luke  "keeps  for  him  who  leaned  upon  the  bosom  of  Jesus,  the 
greater  and  more  perfect  words  concerning  Jesus.  For  no  one  of  those  (viz.,  the  first 
three  Evangelists)  manifested  clearly  his  deity,  as  did  John,  who  introduced  him  saying  : 


14  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL. 


'  /  am  the  Ligid  of  the  World ;  I  am  the  Way  and  the  Truth  and  the  Life;  I  am  the 
Resurrection;  I  am  the  Door;  I  am  the  Good  Shepherd;'  and  in  the  Apocalypse  :  '7 
am  the  Alpha  and  the  Oniega^  the  Beginning  and  the  End,  the  First  and  the  Last.' 
One  may  therefore  venture  to  say  that  the  Gospels  are  the  '  first-fruits '  of  all  the 
Scriptures,  and  that  according  to  John,  the  '  first-fruits '  of  the  Gospels,  the  mind  (or 
meaning)  of  which  no  one  is  able  to  receive  who  has  not  leaned  on  JlSus'  breast "  (Tom. 
I.  6).  Again,  referring  to  the  language  of  Luke's  preface,  that  many  had  taken  in  hand 
to  set  forth  the  events  of  Christ's  life,  he  remarks  that  "  Matthew  did  not  'undertake,' 
but  wrote,  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  like  manner  also  Mark  and  John  ;  and 
similarly  Luke  "  ("  Hom.  in  Luc."  Tom.  iii).  Here  we  have  the  clearest  evidence  that 
Origen  regarded  the  Four  Gospels  as  written  by  inspired  men,  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke, 
and  John,  and  as  the  only  Gospels  then  known  to  the  churches  as  the  work  of  inspired 
teachers. 

It  would  be  superfluous  to  adduce  further  evidence  from  Christian  writers  of  this 
period,  that  our  Fourth  Gospel  was  received  by  the  churches  as  authentic  and  divine. 
It  was  reckoned  with  the  undisputed  books,  and  was  believed  to  be  the  work  of  John, 
the  brother  of  James.  This  is  freely  admitted  by  scholars  who  themselves  suppose  it 
was  written  by  some  unknown  Christian  near  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  To 
bring  forward  the  opinion  of  later  times  would,  therefore,  be  of  no  avail.  Yet  the  testi- 
mony of  Eusehius,  who  was  familiar  with  many  writings  of  the  second  century  that 
have  since  perished,  deserves  a  moment's  consideration.  The  Christian  writings  to 
which  he  refers  as  produced  in  the  period  reaching  from  the  death  of  John  to  the  death 
of  Irenaeus,  would  form  a  respectable  library  ;  and,  if  in  our  possession,  would  answer  a 
multitude  of  perplexing  questions.  With  many  of  these  books  in  his  hands,  Eusebius 
undertook  to  write  a  history  of  Christian  faith  and  life  down  to  his  own  time  (before  and 
after  A.  D.  325).  Making  free  and  careful  use  of  sources  of  knowledge  since  lost,  he 
testifies  that  the  "Gospel  of  John  was  well  known  in  the  churches  throughout  the 
world,"  and  must  "be  acknowledged  as  genuine."  He  includes  it  in  what  he  calls 
"the  holy  quaternion  of  the  Gospels."  and  remarks  that  "  besides  the  Gospel  of  John, 
his  first  Epistle  is  acknowledged,  without  dispute,  both  by  those  of  the  present  day,  and 
also  by  the  ancients"  ("  H.  E."  iii.  24,  25).  Nowhere  does  he  express  any  doubt  con- 
cerning the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  And  it  is  incredible  that  he  should 
have  stated  the  case  as  he  has,  making  no  qualifications,  if  he  had  discovered  in  any 
early  Christian  writings  doubts  respecting  that  spiritual  Gospel.  His  testimony  is, 
therefore,  of  singular  importance,  and  must  not  be  treated  as  that  of  a  man  speaking  for 
the  men  of  his  own  generation  only.  His  voice  repeats  the  united  testimony  of  many 
witnesses,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect  that  it  is  not  faithful  and  true. 

Again,  the  presence  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  in  the  earliest  versions  of  the  New 
Testament  proves  that  it  was  received  by  the  authors  of  those  versions,  and  by  the 
churches  for  which  they  were  made,  as  an  authentic  and  inspired  document ;  moreover, 
if  authentic  and  inspired,  written  by  the  Apostle  John.  For  there  exists  no  shadow  of 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  Christians  of  the  second  century  would  have  accepted  any 
writing  as  authentic  or  inspired,  which  they  did  not  believe  to  have  been  written  in  the 
first  century  by  an  apostle,  or  by  a  companion  of  apostles.  And  if  they  believed  the 
Fourth  Gospel  to  have  been  written  by  one  of  the  apostles,  or  by  one  of  their  com- 
panions in  the  first  century,  there  is  everj'thing  for,  and  nothing  against  the  view,  that 
they  held  the  writer  to  have  been  the  Apostle  John.  This  will  scarcely  be  denied  by  the 
assailants  of  the  Gospel.     The   Old  Syriac  and  the    Old  Latin  are  the  two  earliest 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  15 


versions  of  the  New  Testament  which  are  known  to  scholars  ;  and  both  these  contain 
the  Fourth  Grospel,  as  well  as  the  first  three. 

Of  the  Old  Sj/riac,  Westcott  remarks  :  "  The  history  of  this  Syriac  Version  offers 
a  remarkable  parallel  to  that  of  the  Latin,  but  with  this  difference,  that  of  the  Old 
Syriac  one  very  imi)erfect  copy  only,  the  Curetonian  Version  of  the  Gospels,  has 
been  preserved.  But  this  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Old  Syriac  was  related  very 
nearly  to  the  later  revision  of  the  Peshito,  as  the  Old  Latin  was  to  the  Ilieronymian 
Latin."  Again  :  "  If  a  conjecture  may  be  allowed,  I  think  that  the  various  facta  of 
the  case  are  adequately  explained  by  supposing  that  versions  of  separate  books  of  the 
New  Testament  were  first  made  and  used  in  Palestine,  perhaps  within  the  apostolic  age, 
and  that  shortly  afterwards  these  were  collected,  revised,  and  completed  at  Edessa." 
For  a  statement  of  the  grounds  of  this  conjecture,  we  refer  the  reader  to  Westcott' s 
"History  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament :  Fifth  Edition  ;  "  p.  238  sq.  We  have 
not  been  able  to  find  any  valid  reason  for  assigning  the  Old  Syriac  to  a  later  date 
than  the  middle  of  the  second  century  (a.  d.  150),  and  it  may  have  been  completed 
much  earlier,  possibly  near  the  beginning  of  the  century. 

The  Old  Latin  Version  appears  to  have  been  made  in  North  Africa,  where  the 
Greek  language  was  not  understood  by  the  common  people  as  it  generally  was  in  Italy. 
Hence,  Tertullian,  though  having  himself  a  knowledge  of  Greek,  wrote  in  Latin,  and 
employed,  in  his  quotations  from  the  New  Testament,  a  Latin  Version  with  which  the 
people  of  North  Africa  were  familiar.  This  version  he  sometimes  criticised  as  unsatis<» 
factory,  but  it  was  afterwards  improved  by  revision,  and  at  length  superseded  the 
original  Greek  in  all  the  Western  Church.  As  to  the  date  of  the  Old  Latin,  Westcott 
says :  "If  the  version  was,  as  has  been  seen,  generally  in  use  in  Africa  in  his 
[Tertullian' s]  time,  and  had  been  in  circulation  sufficiently  long  to  stereotype  the 
meaning  of  particular  phrases,  we  cannot  allow  less  than  twenty  years  for  its  publicationi 
and  spread  ;  and  if  we  take  into  account  its  extension  into  Gaul  and  its  reception  there^ 
that  period  will  seem  too  short.  Now  the  beginning  of  Tertullian' s  literary  activity 
cannot  be  placed  later  than  190  A.  D.,  and  we  shall  thus  obtain  the  date  170  A.  D. ,  as 
that  before  which  the  version  must  have  been  made.  How  much  more  ancient  it  really 
is,  cannot  yet  be  discovered." 

As  to  the  use  which  heretics  living  in  the  second  century  made  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
reference  may  be  made  in  the  first  place  to  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus.  Speaking  of  the 
Four  Gospels,  he  says  in  his  work  against  Hceresies  {hih.  in.  11 .  1)  :  "So  firm  is  the 
ground  upon  which  these  Gospels  rest,  that  the  very  heretics  themselves  bear  witness  to 
them,  and.  starting  from  these  [documents],  each  one  of  them  endeavors  to  establish 
his  own  peculiar  doctrine."  And  after  mentioning  certain  errorists  who  rely,  some  on 
this  and  some  on  that  Synoptic  Gospel,  he  proceeds  thus :  "  Those,  moreover,  who  fol- 
low Valentinus,  making  copious  use  of  that  according  to  John  to  illustrate  their  Con- 
junctions, shall  be  proved  to  be  totally  in  error  by  means  of  this  very  Gospel,  as  I  have 
shown  in  the  first  book.  Since  then,  our  opponents  do  bear  testimony  for  us,  and  make 
use  of  these  [documents],  our  proof  derived  from  them  is  firm  and  true." 

According  to  Hippolytus,  whose  "Refutation  of  all  Haeresies"  is  accepted  as  one  of 
the  best  sources  of  knowledge  concerning  the  earliest  perversions  of  Christian  truth,  the 
Naassenes,  or  Ophites,  must  have  begun  to  disseminate  their  speculations  near  the  close 
of  the  first  century.  He  represents  them  as  making  use  of  sayings  found  in  the  Gospels 
or  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  Those  from  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  quoted  freely,  as,  e.  g. , 
"  I  am  the  true  gate  "  (John  x.  9)  ;  and,   "  No  one  can  come  unto  me,  except  my  heav- 


16  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

enly  Father  draw  some  one  unto  me  "  (John  6  :  44)  ;  again,  "  bj^  whom  all  things  were 
made,  and  nothing  was  made  without  him"  (Id.  1:3);  and,  "For  God,  he  says,  is 
spirit ;  wherefore,  he  affirms,  neither  in  this  mountain  do  the  true  worshippers  worship, 
nor  in  Jerusalem,  but  in  spirit  "  (Id.  4  :  21)  ;  also,  "  This,"  he  says,  "  is  the  water  that  is 
above  the  firmament,"  concerning  which,  he  says,  the  Saviour  has  declared,  "If  thou 
knewest  who  it  is  that  asks,  thou  wouldst  have  asked  from  him,  and  he  would  have 
given  you  to  drink  living,  bubbling  water  "  (Id.  4  :  10)  ;  and,  "  If  any  one  is  blind  from 
birth,  and  has  never  beheld  the  true  light  '  which  lighteneth  every  man  that  cometh 
into  the  world  '  (Id.  1  :  9  ;  9  :  1),  by  us  let  him  recover  his  sight." 

The  Feratcp  are  described  by  Hippolytus  as  another  early  class  of  heretics,  akin  to 
the  Ophites,  whose  leader  made  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  thus:  "This,  he  saj^s,  is 
that  which  has  been  declared  :  '  In  the  same  manner  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in 
the  wilderness,  so  also  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up'  (John  3:  14,  15);  also, 
"  Concerning  this,  he  says,  it  has  been  declared  :  'In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and 
the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  This  was  in  the  beginning  with  God, 
all  things  wei-e  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was  not  one  thing  that  was  made.  And 
what  was  formed  in  him  is  life '  "  (Id.  1  :  1-4) ;  again  .  "  When,  however,  he  [Jesus]  re- 
marks, '  Your  father  is  a  murderer  from  the  beginning,'  (Id.  8  :  44),  he  alludes  to  the 
Ruler  and  Demiurge  of  matter,"  etc.  ;  and,  "  I  am  the  door  "  (Id.  10  :  7). 

Basilides  flourished  in  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  A.  D.  117-138,  and  was  the  author  of  a 
Gnostic  theory  of  the  universe.  He  appears  to  have  acce^jted  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  as  of  divine  authority,  but  to  have  interpreted  them  according  to  a  religious 
philosophy  of  his  own.  He  is  represented  by  Hippolytus  (VII.  22)  as  sajnng  :  "This 
[viz.,  the  Word,  "  Let  there  be  light,"]  is  that  which  has  been  stated  in  the  Gospels  : 
'  He  was  the  true  light,  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world  ' ' '  (John 
1  :  9).  "Now  this,"  remarks  the  translator  of  Hippolytus  in  the  "Ante-Nicene  Chris- 
tian Library,"  "is  precisely  the  mode  of  reference  we  should  expect  that  Basilides 
would  employ  ;  whereas,  if  Hippolytus  had  either  fabricated  the  passage  or  adduced  it 
from  hearsay,  it  is  almost  certain  he  would  have  said  'in  the  Gospel  of  John,'  and  not 
indefinitely,  'the  Gospels.'  "  It  is  certainly  for  more  natural  to  suppose  that  Basilides 
is  here  quoted  as  interpreting  a  passage  of  Genesis  by  one  in  John,  than  to  suppose  that 
any  unmentioned  disciple  of  this  heretic  is  thus  quoted. 

Valentinus  was  a  contemporary  of  Justin  Martyr.  Irenaeus  saj's  that  he  "came  to 
Rome  in  the  time  of  H3'ginus,  flourished  under  Pius,  and  remained  until  Anicetus." 
"The  date  a.  d.  140-160  represents  the  close  of  his  Hfe  "  (Charteris,  p.  413).  Accord- 
ing to  Irenaeus  (L.  I.  8,  5)  the  Valentinians  "teach  that  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord, 
has  revealed  the  first  Ogdoad,"  etc.,  and  that  "  he  expresses  himself  thus  :  'In  the  be- 
ginning was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.'  Having 
first  of  all  distinguished  these  three — God,  the  Beginning,  and  the  AVord — he  again 
unites  them,  that  he  may  exhibit  the  production  of  each  of  them,  that  is,  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Word,  and  may  at  the  same  time  show  their  union  with  one  another,  and 
with  the  Father  .  .  .  '  The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God  ' — this  clause  discloses 
the  order  of  production.  'AH  things  were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was  nothing 
made '  ;  for  the  Word  was  the  author  of  form  and  beginning  to  all  the  Mon%  that  came 
into  existence  after  him.  But  '  what  was  made  by  him,'  says  John,  '  is  Hfe.'  "  It  wiU 
be  seen  that  the  Valentinians  "  made  copious  use  "  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  the  only 
doubt  concerning  the  value  of  this  fact  arises  from  the  possibility  that  Irenaeus  quotes 
from  later  adherents  of  the  heresy,  instead  of  the  founder.     But  it  is  well  to  remember 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  17 


that  Irenaeus  was  probably  born  about  A.  D.  135-140;  that  in  early  life  he  was  a 
eunteuiporary  of  Pulj'carp,  Justin  Martyr,  Basilides,  and  Valcntinus  ;  and  tliat  he 
writes  as  if  the  whole  Valentinian  sect  perverted  the  Gospel  of  John  in  order  to 
commend  their  extraordinary  speculation.  That  the  Fourth  Gospel,  borrowed  from  the 
teaching  of  Valentinus,  is  a  wild  conjecture,  resting  upon  no  testimony,  and  contradicted 
by  his  followers,  if  not  by  himself;  that  it  was  written  after  his  demise,  and  was  laid  hold 
of  by  his  followers  to  bolster  up  his  system,  is  no  less  unhistorical  and  absurd.  1'liat  it 
was  cited  as  an  authoritative  Christian  document,  likely  to  have  great  influence  with 
the  men  of  that  generation,  is  perfectly  obvious.  And  that  it  had  such  an  influence 
because,  and  only  because,  it  was  believed  to  have  been  written  by  "John,  the  disciple 
of  the  Lord,"  is  equally  obvious  to  one  familiar  with  Christian  literature  of  the  second 
century.  How  impossible,  then,  to  believe  that  it  had  just  seen  the  light,  being  foisted 
upon  the  Christians  of  that  age,  and  received  by  them,  without  evidence  of  apostolic 
authority  !  An  age,  be  it  remembered,  when  heresies  were  breaking  out  in  every 
quarter,  and  the  churches  were  being  wai'ned  against  them  by  such  men  as  Polyearp  and 
Irenaeus  and  TertuUian. 

Finally,  it  may  be  well  to  observe  the  manner  in  which  TertuUian  refers  to  A''alen- 
tinus.  In  his  treatise,  "De  Prsescript.  Haereticorum "  (ch.  37),  he  maintains  that 
heretics  have  no  right  to  employ  the  Scriptures,  adding:  "To  whom  it  should  properly 
be  said:  '  Who  are  ye?  When,  and  whence  have  you  come?  AVhat  are  j'ou  doing  in 
my  [domain],  not  being  mine?  By  what  right,  Marciou,  dost  thou  cut  down  my  forest? 
By  whose  permission,  Valentinus,  dost  thou  turn  nwai/  7n>j  fountains  f  By  what  power, 
Apelles,  dost  thou  remove  my  boundaries?  Why  do  ye,  aliens,  here  sow  and  feed 
according  to  your  own  will?  This  is  my  possession;  from  of  old  I  possess  it.  I  have 
firm  titles  from  the  authors  to  whom  it  belonged.  I  am  heir  of  the  apostles."  Again 
(ch.  38) :  "  One  perverts  the  Scriptures  by  his  hand  ;  another,  by  his  explanation  of  the 
meaning.  For  if  Valentinus  seems  to  use  the  entire  Instrument  [A  c,  Bible],  he  raises 
his  hand  against  the  truth  with  as  prompt  a  mind  as  Marcion.  For  Marcion  plainly  and 
openly  made  use  of  a  swoi'd,  not  a  pen,  since  he  slaughtered  the  Scriptures  for  his 
material.  But  Valentinus  spared  them,  since  he  did-  not  invent  Scriptures  for  his 
material,  but  material  for  the  Scriptures.  And  j'et  he  took  away  more,  and  added  more, 
by  removing  the  proper  meanings  of  single  words,  and  by  inserting  combinations  of 
things  discordant."  It  appears  from  this  testimony  of  the  great  African,  that  Valen- 
tinus in  his  day  accepted  the  entire  Canon  of  Scripture  received  by  orthodox  Christians 
in  the  time  of  TertuUian  ;  and  this,  we  know,  included  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

This  unvarnished  statement  of  the  external  evidence  in  favor  of  the  belief  that 
the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written  by  the  Apostle  John,  is  sufficient  to  prove  the  correct- 
ness of  that  belief,  unless  there  is  something  in  the  Gospel  itself  inconsistent  with  such 
authorship. 

Passing  to  the  internal  evidence,  we  discover  many  things  in  this  Gospel  which  con- 
firm the  view  that  it  was  written  by  the  Apostle  John,  rather  than  by  some  unknown 
Christian  of  the  second  centurj\  And  this  is  the  alternative  advanced  by  modern 
criticism.  Whoever  believes  that  it  was  written  by  a  personal  follower  of  Christ,  i.  e., 
by  a  witness  of  much  that  is  here  said  to  have  been  done  or  taught  by  him,  will  concede 
that  its  writer  was  John  ;  and  whoever  disbelieves  that  it  could  have  been  written  by 
John,  will  be  sure  to  assign  it  to  some  unknown  Christian  of  the  second  century. 

Attention  may  first  be  given  to  the  hearin'^  of  certain  differences  between  the  Fourth 
Gospel  and  the  other  three  npon  the  question  of  authorship^  as  stated  above..    One  of  these 


18  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

differences  pertains  to  the  localities  in  which  Christ  is  said  to  have  fulfilled  his  ministry. 
If  a  reader  had  the  first  three  Gospels  onl^^  he  would  be  apt  to  conclude  that  Jesus  did 
very  little  teaching  in  Jerusalem  before  his  final  visit  to  that  city — a  visit  which,  after 
two  or  three  days  of  public  service,  was  terminated  by  his  arrest  and  trial  and  cruci- 
fixion. A  microscopic  scrutiny  might  reveal  to  him  a  few  traces  of  the  Lord's  earlier 
presence  and  influence  there  (Matt.  23:  37;  Luke  13:  34;  10:  38,  39),  but  even  such 
scrutiny  would  not  discover  any  trace  of  a  previous  ministry  of  Jesus  in  the  province  of 
Judea,  or  in  that  of  Samaria.  According  to  these  Gospels,  Galilee  appears  to  have 
been  the  almost  exclusive  theatre  of  the  Saviour's  ministry.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Fourth  Gospel  represents  the  Lord  as  going  up  to  Jerusalem  at  a  passover  which 
occurred  soon  after  his  baptism,  as  expelling  the  money-changers  from  his  Father's 
house,  as  doing  signs  for  several  da3'S  in  the  holy  city,  and  as  continuing  his  ministry 
for  a  considerable  period,  perhaps  for  months,  in  the  province  of  Judea.  (See  "Out- 
lines of  the  Life  of  Christ,"  by  I].  R.  Condor,  pp.  G2-4) ;  also  as  preaching  two  days, 
with  remarkable  effect,  in  Sychar,  near  the  ancient  Shechem,  on  his  way  through 
Samaria  to  Galilee ;  then,  at  the  next  passover,  as  returning  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem 
(John  5  :  1),  where  he  healed  the  infirm  man  on  the  Sabbath  and  afterwards  boldly 
preached  to  the  Jews ;  and  as  coming  once  more  after  a  long  period  of  service  in 
Galilee,  to  Jerusalem  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  six  months  before  his  death,  that 
he  might  remain  there  off  and  on,  teaching  and  doing  wonderful  works  for  another  in- 
definite time  ;  and  finally,  as  returning,  after  an  absence  in  Ephraim,  through  Jericho,  to 
spend  the  last  da3-s  of  his  public  life  in  the  holy  city. 

It  would  then  be  not  far  from  correct  to  say  that  the  first  three  Gospels  appear  to 
assign  about  sixty-four  out  of  sixty-five  parts  of  the  Saviour's  i^ublic  ministrj'  to  Galilee 
and  its  neighborhood,  while  the  Fourth  Gospel  appears  to  assign  not  far  from  one 
hundred  and  seventeen  out  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-nine  parts  to  Galilee,  and 
perhaps  fifty-two  parts  to  other  regions,  especially  Judea.  The  difference  is  striking. 
But  it  is  a  difference,  not  a  contradiction.  And  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  writer 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  conscious  of  any  difference  requiring  exi)lanation  between 
his  Gospel  and  the  first  three  ;  for  had  he  been  conscious  of  such  a  difference,  he 
would  have  given  the  requisite  explanation,  as  was  his  custom  in  other  instances 
where  exjilanation  was  needful.  These  are  the  facts  :  A  great  difference ;  a  difference 
that  involves  no  contradiction  ;  a  difference  that  was  unperceived,  or,  at  least,  unfelt 
by  the  writer ;  in  other  words,  a  harmony  in  diversity  which  is  remarkable  and 
apparently  unsought.  How  then  can  these  facts  be  most  naturally  accounted  for? 
By  supposing  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written  by  John,  a  personal  attendant  of 
Jesus,  or  by  supposing   that  it  was  written   by  a  fakarius  of  the   second    century? 

It  does  not  appear  to  be  at  all  improbable  that  a  perfectlj'  honest  writer,  as  John  is 
presumed  to  have  been,  who  is  relating  what  he  has  seen  or  heard,  should  fearlessly  put 
down  events  as  he  remembers  them,  being  sure  that  it  is  his  duty  as  a  first  witness  to 
declare  the  truth  without  change,  and  equally  sure  that  the  truth  Avhich  he  declares 
cannot  be  inconsistent  with  any  other  truth.  This,  I  saj',  would  be  a  natural  state  of 
mind  in  a  conscientious  writer,  who  was  relating  what  he  distinctly  remembered  seeing 
or  hearing.  And  if,  in  this  state  of  mind,  he  should  intentionally  omit  much  that  he 
remembered,  either  because  it  had  been  already  put  in  writing  b}'  others,  or  because  a 
complete  record  would  be  too  voluminous  for  use,  he  would  do  this  without  feeling  it 
necessary  to  adjust  his  own  narrative,  minutely,  to  other  narratives  ;  he  would  simply 
omit  what  his  plan  required  him  to  omit,  and  describe  the  rest  as  he  remembered  it.     A 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  19 

sense  of  reality  would  control  his  pen.  But  this  could  not  be  the  case  with  a.falsanus 
of  the  second  century.  In  his  own  mind  he  could  not  be  as  independent  of  the  Synop- 
tic Grospels  as  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  appears  to  have  been.  He  could  not 
have  assigned  so  large  a  part  of  the  Saviour's  public  ministry  to  new  places,  without 
feeling  that  there  was  great  danger  of  contradicting  the  well  known  and  approved  Gos- 
pels. In  a  word,  it  seems  quite  improbable  that  he  would  have  ventured  to  differ  in 
this  respect  so  widely  from  the  Synoptists  ;  improbable  that,  having  ventured  to  do 
this,  he  would  have  escaped  the  danger  of  actual  contradiction  between  his  record  and 
theirs ;  and  improbable,  if  he  accomplished  this  at  all,  that  he  could  have  done  it, 
without  betraying  the  slightest  apprehension  of  the  danger  to  which  he  was  exposed, 
or  the  slightest  attempt  to  adjust  his  narrative  to  theirs,  or  the  slightest  wish  to  correct 
what  he  might  regard  as  inaccurate  in  their  narratives.  It  is  clear  to  me,  therefore,  that 
the  difference  between  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  other  three,  as  to  the  localities  of 
Christ's  ministry,  is  best  accounted  for  by  ascribing  the  last  of  the  Gospels  to  John. 

Another  difference  relatiis  to  the  duration  of  our  Lord's  ministry.  If  we  had  the 
first  three  Gospels  only,  we  should  probably  think  that  the  period  from  Christ's  baptism 
to  his  crucifixion  comprised  about  one  year  and  a  third  ;  but  with  the  Fourth  Gospel  in 
our  hands,  we  should  probably  infer  that  this  period  comprised  three  years  and  a  third. 
Even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  feast  of  the  Jeics,  spoken  of  in  John  5:  1,  was  not  the 
passover,  the  Fourth  Gospel  would  prove  that  the  public  life  of  Jesus  filled  a  period  of 
two  years  and  a  third.  Now  this  difference  between  the  first  three  Gospels  and  the 
fourth,  is  readily  explained  if  the  fourth  was  written  by  an  apostle,  familiar  with  the 
public  life  of  Christ.  For  such  a  writer  would  see  no  difficulty  in  the  case.  It  would 
probably  never  occur  to  him  that  any  of  his  readers  might  be  puzzled  to  ascertain  which 
of  the  Jewish  feasts  he  meant  in  John  5:  1,  or  that  there  could  ever  be  any  difficulty  in 
reconciling  his  account  of  the  duration  of  Christ's  ministry  with  that  of  the  Synoptical 
writers.  The  very  clearness  and  certainty  of  his  knowledge  would  prevent  explanation. 
But  it  would  have  been  far  otherwise  with  a  Christian  of  the  second  century  in  attempt- 
ing to  write  as  an  eye-witness  concerning  events  that  he  knew  only  by  report,  or  that  he 
imagined  for  a  purpose.  Too  much  boldness  would  have  led  to  contradiction  between 
his  story  and  the  earlier  documents  ;  while  too  much  caution  would  have  betrayed  itself 
in  minute  adjustment  or  explanation.  Marvelous  indeed  would  have  been  the  genius 
of  any  man  of  the  second  century,  who  could  have  written  the  Fourth  Gospel !  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  say  that  he  would  have  been  far  greater  than  any  of  the  apostles,  and 
the  task  which  he  performed  far  more  difficult  than  any  that  has  been  achieved  by 
writers  of  history  or  of  storj'  since  the  world  was. 

Another  difference  relates  to  the  miracles  of  Jesris.  As  to  those  recorded  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  four  remarks  may  be  made:  1.  That,  with  two  exceptions,  they  are  not 
the  same  as  those  described  in  the  other  Gospels.  The  two  exceptions  are  Christ's  walk- 
ing on  the  sea  and  his  feeding  the  five  thousand.  2.  That  several  of  them  are  singularly 
conclusive  when  studied  as  evidences  of  divine  power.  Such  are  the  changing  of  water 
into  wine,  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  with  five  loaves  and  two  small  fishes,  the 
giving  of  sight  to  one  who  had  been  born  blind,  the  raising  to  life  of  one  who  had  been 
dead  four  days,  and,  perhaps,  the  healing  of  the  nobleman's  son  from  a  distance.  But 
the  same  cannot  be  said  of  the  other  two,  viz. :  walking  upon  the  sea,  and  helping  the 
disciples  to  take  an  extraordinary  draught  of  fishes.  Hence,  six  out  of  the  eight 
miracles  recorded  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  may  be  pronounced  remarkable  even  as 
miracles,  affording  the  strongest  proof  possible,  from   such  a  source,  of  supernatural 


20  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

power  wielded  by  Christ.  3.  That  they  seem  to  have  been  selected  for  narration, 
because  of  their  fitness  to  beget  faith  in  Christ  in  the  minds  of  those  who  believed 
the  record.  For  not  without  a  measure  of  reason  has  the  Fourth  Gospel  been  described 
by  certain  scholars  as  a  Tendenzsclirift ;  i.  e.,  a  treatise  composed  with  a  definite  aim,  or 
to  accomplish  a  given  purpose.  The  writer  himself  authorizes  this  view  of  his  work  : 
"So  also  did  Jesus  many  other  signs  before  the  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this 
book ;  but  these  have  been  written  that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
the  Sun  of  God;  and  that  believing,  ye  may»have  life  in  his  name"  (20:  30,  31.) 
A  better  statement  of  the  object  which  moved  the  writer  of  this  Gospel  to  select  for 
insertion  the  particular  miracles  which  are  described  in  it,  need  not  be  sought.  4.  That 
with  the  miracles  are  also  related  their  obvious  consequences.  Indeed,  the  consequences 
are  so  manifestly  important  as  to  furnish  an  ample  justification  of  the  miracles.  A 
thoughtful  reader  will  observe  the  words  of  the  Evangelist  in  John  2  :  23  :  "  Many  be- 
lieved in  his  name,  beholding  his  signs  which  he  did  "  (Rev.  Yer.);  and  the  similar  words 
of  Nicodemus,  3:2:  "  We  know  that  thou  art  a  Teacher  come  from  God,  for  no  one 
can  do  these  signs  which  thou  doest,  except  God  be  with  him  "  ;  also,  the  kindred  state- 
ment of  the  Evangelist  respecting  the  miracle  at  Cana,  2:11:  "This  beginning  of  his 
signs  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  manifested  his  glory  ;  and  his  disciples  be- 
lieved on  him"  (Rev.  Ver.) ;  and  his  notice  of  the  consequence  of  Christ's  next  mira- 
cle in  Galilee,  namely,  the  faith  of  the  nobleman  (^aaiAiKos)  and  his  house,  ch.  4:  53: 
"The  father  knew  therefore  that  it  was  in  the  same  hour  in  which  Jesus  said  unto  him  : 
Thy  son  lives;  and  he  himself  believed,  and  all  his  house"  (Bible  Union  Version). 
More  at  length  are  the  consequences  of  the  cure  of  the  infirm  man  in  Jerusalem 
described  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  this  Gospel,  as  well  as  the  consequences  of  feeding 
the  five  thousand,  in  the  sixth  chapter,  the  consequences  of  giving  sight  to  the  man  who 
was  born  blind,  in  the  ninth  chapter,  and  the  consequences  of  raising  Lazarus, to  life 
again,  in  the  eleventh  chapter.  The  Fourth  Gospel  differs  then  from  the  first  three  in 
the  four  respects  mentioned,  in  the  particular  miracles  which  it  describes,  in.  the  great- 
ness of  these  miracles,  in  their  eminent  fitness  to  inspire  belief  on  the  name  of  Jesus, 
the  Son  of  God,  and  in  their  important  consequences  at  the  time.  Not  that  the 
miracles  of  the  earlier  Gospels  are  entirely  wanting  in  the  three  characteristics  last 
named,  but  that  these  characteristics  are  more  distinct  and  pronounced  in  the  miracles 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  is  a  difference  of  degree  onlj',  yet  a  difierence  so  clearly 
marked  as  to  need  explanation. 

What  bearing,  then,  has  the  difference  in  question  on  the  authorship  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel?  Is  it  best  explained  by  considering  the  writer  an  apostle  who  selected  his 
materials  without  fear  from  the  life  of  Christ  with  which  he  was  familiar,  or  by  con- 
sidering him  a  post-apostolic  Christian,  who  shaped  or  invented  materials  to  suit  his 
purpose?  Unless  there  is  something  really  incredible  in  the  miracles  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  something  which  compels  us  to  assign  them  to  the  realm  of  fable,  I  see  no  good 
reason  for  supposing  that  an  apostle  may  not  have  chosen  to  insert  just  these,  and  no 
others,  in  his  narrative.  Writing  after  the  Synoptical  Gospels  had  come  into  use,  and 
writing  for  a  definite  and  Christian  purpose,  it  is  easy  to  believe  that  he  may  have 
chosen  them,  chiefly  because  they  were  fitted  to  accomplish  the  object  of  his  Gospel, 
but  also  because  most  of  them  were  not  recorded  in  existing  Gospels.  But  I  cannot  see 
how  a  wise  and  good  man  of  the  second  century  could  have  learned  or  invented  the 
simple,  but  perfect,  storj'  of  these  miracles,  unrecorded  by  the  other  Evangelists  ;  nor 
can  I  easily  believe  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written  by  any  man  who  was  not  both 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  21 

wise  and  good.  It  does  not  bear  the  marks  of  folly  or  of  craft.  It  seems  a  very  bold 
and  stniiglitforward  writing,  and,  looking  simply  at  its  record  of  miracles,  I  think  the 
probabilities  are  as  ten  to  one  in  favor  of  its  Johannean  authorship. 

Before  leaving  this  point  we  may  recur  to  the  object  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  as  declared 
by  the  author  hiuLself,  viz. :  to  lead  its  readers  to  "believe  that  Je.sus  is  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  and  that  believing"  thej'^  "might  have  life  in  his  name."  Assuming  the 
truth  of  this  statement,  can  we  doubt  the  sincerity  of  the  author's  fiith  in  Christ  as 
the  Saviour  of  men?  If  not,  and  we  admit  the  sincerity  of  his  Christian  faith,  can  we 
doubt  his  belief  of  the  truth  of  what  he  was  writing?  Could  he,  being  an  honest 
believer  in  Jesus  on  groumls  satisfactory  to  his  own  powerful  mind,  resort  to  fictions  of 
tlie  most  extraordinary  kind  in  persuading  others  to  share  his  faith  ?  Could  the  man 
who  truly  honored  the  Saviour,  and  desired  to  have  others  honor  him,  ascribe  to  him, 
falsely,  sucli  words  as,  "  T  am  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life,"  or  such  a  praj'cr  to 
tiie  Father  as  this:  "Sanctity  tliem  in  the  truth,  thy  word  is  truth?"  (Revised  Version.) 
There  is  a  psychological  absurdity  involved  in  this  view.  But  if  we  assume  that  the 
author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  did  not  himself  truly  believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  men,  and  did  not  seriously  aim  to  lead  others  to  this 
belief,  how  shall  we  explain  the  moral  and  spiritual  elevation  of  this  Gospel?  "By 
their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  An  evil  tree  cannot  bring  forth  good  fruit.  But  here 
certainly  is  good  fruit. 

Another  difference  relates  to  the  parables  of  Jesus.  The  Fourth  Gospel  does  not 
contain  the  word  "parable"  (n-apa^oA^)^  or  any  discourse  of  Jesus  that  exactly  corre- 
sponds with  the  beautiful  illustrations  of  truth  which  bear  that  name  in  the  Synoptical 
Gospels.  His  representation  of  himself  as  the  door  of  the  sheepfold,  and  then  as  the 
good  shepherd  that  giveth  his  Ufe  for  the  sheep,  in  John  10  :  1-17,  reminds  one  of  the 
])erfect  parables  reported  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  does  not  fill  the  mould  in  which 
they  are  cast.  Yet,  though  there  are  no  perfect  parables  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  there 
are  many  passages  which  may  be  said  to  breathe  the  spirit  of  parables.  Nature  is 
made  to  utter  the  profoundest  lessons  of  religious  truth.  Jesus  represents  himself  as 
the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life,  as  the  light  of  the  world,  as  the  true  bread  from 
heaven,  as  the  true  vine,  and  as  the  king  of  all  those  who  are  of  the  truth.  Moreover, 
the  writer  calls  some  of  his  sayings  "proverbs"  (TapoiM«it).  Now  it  is  easy  to  believe 
that  Jesus  made  use  of  dark  sayings  (n-apoi^tai)  as  well  as  of  parables  (n-apa3oAai)^  and  that 
in  some  parts  of  his  ministry  he  employed  the  former,  while  in  others  he  employed  the 
latter,  skillfully  adapting  his  method  of  instruction  or  appeal  to  the  spiritual  condition 
of  those  addressed.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  believe  that  an  apostle,  who  had  often  listened 
to  both  forms  of  teaching,  might  be  led  by  his  deeper  interest  in  one  form  than  in  the 
other,  or  by  his  wish  to  record  the  truths  which  his  Lord  had  taught  in  that  form,  but 
not  in  the  other,  to  insert  in  his  narrative  of  Christ's  ministry  the  teaching  which  had 
been  given  in  that  form.  But  it  is  not  so  credible  that  afalsarius  of  the  second  century 
could  have  originated  the  metaphorical  teaching  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  or  could  have 
received  it  in  so  perfect  a  form  through  oral  tradition,  or  would  have  ventured  to  put  so 
much  teaching  of  this  form  in  his  Gospel,  without  even  saying  that  Jesus  sometimes 
taught  in  parables. 

Another  difiierence  is  found  in  the  events  related.  Perhaps  it  may  be  suggested  that 
a  diiference  of  locality  and  of  duration  in  the  ministry  of  Christ  would  account  for  this 
difi'erence  of  events,  whoever  may  have  been  the  writer.  To  some  extent  it  would  ;  but 
nothing  short  of  an  examination  of  cases  will  show  whether  it  is  or  is  not  a  sufficient 


22  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

explanation  of  the  actual  narrative.  Take  the  following  instance  :  The  Fourth  Gospel 
not  only  asserts  that  Jesus  was  preaching  and  making  disciples  for  a  considerable  period 
in  Judea  before  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist,  but  also  that,  by  the  hands  of 
his  first  disciples,  he  was  baptizing  disciples  in  that  region.  Now  as  the  work  of  Jesus 
in  baptizing  led  to  the  debate  about  purification,  to  the  consequent  appeal  to  John  the 
Baptist,  and  so  to  the  testimony  which  he  gave  in  respect  to  Christ,  it  evidently  fell  in 
with  the  purpose  of  the  Evangelist  to  insert  the  whole  story  in  his  Gospel.  If  the  events 
were  actual,  there  is  no  reason  why  an  apostle  should  not  have  made  use  of  them  in 
his  narrative.  But  I  think  it  flir  less  probable  that  a  writer  of  the  second  century, 
knowing  the  Lord's  ministry  through  the  earlier  Gospels  or  oral  tradition,  would  have 
been  acquainted  with  these  events,  if  they  really  occurred,  or  that  he  would  have  dared 
to  relate  them  without  historical  warrant.  For  I  need  not  pause  to  show  that  the 
M'riter  of  this  paragraph  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  (3 :  22-30)  has  come  very  near,  ap- 
parentl.v,  to  a  contradiction  of  the  earlier  accounts  which  seem  to  represent  the  ministry 
of  Jesus  as  beginning  after  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  not  in  Judea, 
but  in  Galilee.  Matt.  4  :  12,  17,  24  ;  Mark  1  :  14,  28  ;  Luke  4  :  14.  Speaking  of  seem- 
ing contradictions,  reference  may  also  be  made  to  the  words  which  this  Gospel  ascribes  to 
the  Baptist :  "And  I  knew  him  not,"  etc.,  (John  1  :  31).  Would  it  have  been  natural 
for  a  writer  of  the  second  century,  familiar  with  the  first  three  Gospels,  to  put  these 
words  into  the  mouth  of  the  Bajitist?  Would  he  not  have  inferred  just  the  contrary 
from  Matthew's  account  of  John's  words  when  Christ  ap])lied  to  him  for  ba]itism  : 
"I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me"  (3:  14)?  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  if  the  writer  was  one  who  had  heard  the  Baptist,  a  great  prophet 
and  his  revered  teacher,  utter  these  words,  might  he  not  have  recorded  them  without 
fear  of  contradiction  ?  He  would  not  have  been  carefully  and  laboriously  working  up 
a  case,  but  simply  stating  what  he  remembered.  But  to  return  from  this  digression  : 
I  do  not  think  it  at  all  probable  that  there  was  any  Christian  in  the  second  century  who 
could  have  put  into  the  mouth  of  John  the  Baptist  these  beautiful  and  magnanimous 
words:  "A  man  can  receive  nothing,  except  it  have  been  given  him  from  heaven.  Ye 
yourselves  bear  me  witness,  that  1  said,  I  am  not  the  Christ,  but  that  I  am  sent  before 
him.  He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom  ;  but  the  friend  of  the  bridegroom,  who 
standeth  and  heareth  him,  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of  the  bridegroom's  voice  :  this  my 
joy  therefore  is  made  full.  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease  "  (Rev.  Ver).  If  any 
Christian  of  the  second  century  originated  such  a  response,  I  would  join  with  all 
my  heart  in  calling  him  the  Great  Unknoicn  of  New  Testament  writers ;  but  I  have  an 
impression  that  the  theory  of  great  unknown  writers  of  Scripture  has  been  stretched 
to  the  utmost,  and   even  carried   at  times  beyond   the   limits   of   sober  reason. 

Again,  according  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  Jesus,  when  seized  and  bound  in  the  garden, 
was  "led  to  Annas  first,"  because  "  he  was  father-in-law  of  Caiaphas,  the  high-priest." 
But  the  first  three  Gospels  do  not  mention  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  led  to  Annas  before 
he  was  taken  to  Caiaphas  and  the  Sanhedrin.  Precisely  what  was  accomplished  by 
leading  him  to  Annas  first  is  not  stated  in  the  Fourth  Gospel ;  nor  is  it  perfectl}'  clear 
how  the  record  of  this  fact  contributed  to  securing  the  object  sought  hy  the  Evangelist 
in  writing  this  Gospel.  We  are  therefore  unable  to  imagine  any  reason  for  the  insertion 
of  this  statement,  if  it  is  not  true  ;  and  if  what  is  stated  was  done,  who  so  likely 
to  mention  it  as  one  who  followed  Jesus  from  the  garden  that  night  ?  Its  insertion  by 
&  faharius  o^  i\\Q  second  century  would  be  simpljMinaccountable  ;  especially  as  anj' one 
who  was  adjusting  his  narrative  to  earlier  Gospels  must  have  seen  that  the  introduction 


INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL.  23 

of  this  event  would  be  crowding  an  already  crowded  period,  and  would  be  likely  to  pro- 
duce confusion  in  the  reader's  mind.  Only  one  supposition,  namely,  that  the  statement 
is  erroneous,  can  justify  the  view  that  it  was  made  by  some  unknown  writer  of  tiie 
second  century  ;  and  that  supposition  cannot  be  proved  correct. 

Again,  the  Fourth  Gospel  seems  to  place  tlia  mppar  in  Jktiuiii}/,  at  which  Christ  was 
anointed  by  Mary,  six  days  before  the  pussover,  while  the  other  Uosjjels  seem  to  place 
it  two  days  before  the  passover.  The  language  is  not  such  in  either  case  as  to  make  the 
date  perfectly  certain  against  other  testimony  ;  but  if  we  had  only  the  Fourth  Gosjjel 
we  should  doubtless  put  the  supper  on  Saturday,  while  if  we  had  only  the  Synoptical 
Gospels,  we  should  put  it  on  Wednesday.  In  this  instance,  also,  I  believe  that  an 
apostle,  writing  from  the  springs  of  personal  knowledge,  would  scarcely  think  of  a  pos- 
sibility of  contradiction  between  his  record  and  any  other ;  but  1  cannot  easily  imagine 
that  n  falsariun,  who  had  learned  from  others  all  that  he  knew  of  these  events,  would 
have  failed  to  shun  such  a  difference  as  the  one  in  question — especially  as  there  ajiijears 
to  be  no  assignable  motive  for  giving  the  feast  an  earlier  date  than  it  seems  to  have  in 
the  Synoptists. 

Another  difference  arises  from  omissions.  There  are  a  few  things  omitted  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  which  are  recorded  in  the  first  three,  and  which  John  would  have  been 
more  likely  than  a  falsarius  to  omit.  One  of  these  is  the  mime  of  the  Apoatle  John. 
This  does  not  once  occur  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  And  it  is  conceivable  that  a  truly 
modest  man  might  never  refer  to  himself  by  name,  though  he  had  filled  an  important 
place  among  the  disciples.  But  it  is  impossible  to  discover  any  motive  that  would  have 
led  a  Chistian  of  the  second  century  to  omit  the  name  of  John,  the  companion  of  Peter. 
A  similar  remark  may  be  made  concei'ning  the  omission  of  the  r,ame  of  his  hrotlicr 
Jamts,  who  was  the  third  member  of  the  inner  group  of  three,  so  highly  distinguished  by 
Christ.  Andrew,  Peter,  Philip,  Nathanael,  Thomas,  even  Judas  Iscariot,  are  frequently 
mentioned,  but  neither  James  nor  John.  And  the  same  may  be  noticed  in  regard  to 
Salome,  who  was  probablj^  the  mother  of  James  andJolui.  Compare,  on  this  point,  John 
19:  25,  with  Matthew  27:  56,  and  Mark  15:40.  "It  is  very  unlikely,"  says  Conder 
("Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Christ,"  p.  55,  Note),  "that  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  had 
a  sister  of  the  same  name  ;  and  it  quite  accords  with  St.  John's  suppression  of  his  own 
name  that  he  should  refer  to  his  own  mother  in  the  same  manner.  This  view  throws  a 
beautiful  light  both  on  the  special  love  of  the  Master  for  this  one  disciple,  and  on  John 
19  :  26,  27,"  where  Jesus  commits  to  John  the  care  of  his  mother. 

Again,  the  Fourth  Gospel  never  adds  the  epithet  Baptist  to  the  name  of  John,  the 
harbinger  of  Christ.  If  the  modest  author  was  himself  the  only  other  John  who  was 
closely  connected  with  Jesus,  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  he  would  speak  of  the  fore- 
runner as  John — the  John  who  needed  no  epithet  to  distinguish  him  from  the  writer — 
the  only  person,  in  fact,  whom  the  writer,  in  his  oral  reminiscences,  had  any  occasion  to 
denominate  John,  since  if  he  referred  to  himself  at  all  it  would  naturally  be  done  bj' 
means  of  the  pronoun  I.  In  such  circumstances,  I  say,  it  is  by  no  means  improbable 
that  the  apostle  would  uniformly  call  his  great  namesake  simply  John.  But  this  would 
not  have  been  a  natural  thing  for  any  one  else  to  do,  certainly  not  for  a  Christian  of  the 
second  century. 

The  force  of  the  argument  from  these  omissions  in  favor  of  the  view  that  the  Fourth 
Gospel  was  written  by  the  Apostle  John  rather  than  by  some  unknown  Christian  of  the 
second  century,  depends  in  part  upon  the  assumption  that  this  apostle  was  a  truly  modest 
man.     If  there  were  good  evidence  that  he  was  a  forward,  conceited,  self-asserting  man, 


24  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE  GOSPEL. 

the  force  of  this  consideration  would  be  greatly  weakened.  And  two  facts  have  been 
supposed  to  favor  the  idea  that  he  was  the  reverse  of  modest  or  self-forgetful,  namely  : 
First,  that  he  sometimes  refers  to  himself  as  the  disciple  lohom  Jesus  loved  (viz. ,  in  1 3  : 
23  ;  19  :  26  ;  20  :  2  ;  21  :  7,  20).  But  in  estimating  the  bearing  of  this  fact,  we  ought  to 
ask  ourselves  :  first,  how  this  way  of  referring  to  himself  was  modified  in  his  own  feelings 
by  withholding  his  name  ;  secondly,  how  it  was  modified  by  the  warmth  of  his  nature 
which  may  have  made  him  peculiarly  grateful  to  Christ  for  tender  love,  and  inexpressibly 
eager  to  utter  in  some  strong,  though  impersonal  way,  his  profound  appreciation  of  that 
love  ;  and,  thirdly,  how  he  bore  himself,  though  a  powerful  and  ardent  soul,  when  after- 
wards he  was  associated  with  Peter  and  the  other  apostles  in  Christian  service.  If  we 
answer  these  questions,  as  they  ought  to  be  answered  in  justice  to  the  life  and  character 
of  John  as  they  appear  in  the  sacred  record,  the  argument  from  the  omissions  noted 
above  will  lose  none  of  its  force.  The  second  fact  which  is  alleged  to  be  inconsistent 
with  genuine  or  at  least  peculiar  modesty  on  the  part  of  John,  is  the  request  which  he 
joined  with  his  brother  James  in  making,  through  their  mother,  that  they  two  might  sit, 
one  on  his  right  hand  and  the  other  on  his  left,  in  his  kingdom.  But  in  estimating  the 
value  of  this  fact,  as  an  objection  to  the  modesty  of  John,  we  may  properly  bear  in  mind, 
{(i)  that  these  two  brothers  were  expecting  that  Jesus  would  establish  an  earthly  kingdom, 
(Ij)  that  they  were  probably  cousins  of  Jesus,  and  were  certainly  honored  with  his  special 
intimacy,  (c)  that  they  presented  their  request  through  their  mother,  if  not  by  her 
advice,  and  (d)  that  they  appear  to  have  quietly  droi)ped  the  matter  as  soon  as  the 
Master" s  will  was  known.  Beyond  question  they  were  among  the  ablest  as  well  as  the 
best  beloved  of  the  disciples,  and  this  one  request  does  not,  in  view  of  all  the  circum- 
stances, prove  that  tliey  were  specially  forward,  or  in  any  respect  conceited  men.  The 
presentation  of  their  request  through  their  mother,  points  rather  in  the  opposite 
direction. 

We  have  now  briefly  considered  the  bearing  of  certain  differences  between  the  Fourth 
Gospel  and  the  other  three  on  the  question  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  former,  namely  : 
(a)  a  difference  as  to  the  localities  in  which  Christ  fulfilled  his  ministry,  {L)  a  difference 
as  to  the  duration  of  that  ministry,  (c)  a  difference  as  to  the  miracles  ascribed  to  Jesus, 
(d)  a  difference  as  to  parables  or  method  of  teaching,  (r)  a  difference  as  to  events  related, 
(/)  a  difference  occasioned  by  a  definite  class  of  omissions, — and  have  found  them  all  to 
be  favorable  to  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

Attention  may  be  given,  secoudlt/,  to  certain  narratices  of  the  Fou  th  Gospel  tchich  are 
rendered  peculiarly  graphic  by  means  of  unimj)ortant  circumsta)ices — meaning  by  unim- 
portant circumstances  those  which  are  not  essential  to  the  expression  of  religious  truth. 

One  of  these  is  the  circumstantial  way  in  which  the  Fvangelist  di-scrihe^'i  the  gathering 
to  Je.fus  of  his  first  disciples  (1  :  29-42).  After  giving  an  account  of  an  interview  between 
John  the  Baptist  and  a  deputation  of  Pharisees  from  Jerusalem,  he  mentions  the  place 
where  this  deputation  was  received,  viz. :  Bethany  (or  Bethabara),  beyond  Jordan,  where 
John  was  baptizing,  and  then  proceeds  to  relate  how  on  the  morrow  the  Baptist  saw 
Jesus  coming  unto  him,  and  said  :  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,"  etc.;  how  on  the  follow- 
ing day  he  was  standing  with  two  of  his  disciples  and,  looking  upon  Jesus  as  he  walked, 
said  again  :  ''  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  !  "  how  the  two  di.sciples  heard  him  saying  this, 
though  it  may  not  have  been  addressed  particularly  to  them,  and  therefore  followed 
Jesus;  how  Jesus  having  turned  and  seen  them  following,  said  unto  them:  "What 
seek  j'e?"  And  when  they  answered,  "Rabbi,  where  dwellest  thou?"  invited  them 
to  "come  and  see";  how  they  complied  with  this  invitation  ;  and,  it  being  about  the 


INTRODUCTION   TO   THE  GOSPEL.  25 

tenth  hour,  abode  the  rest  of  the  day  with  him,  though  one  of  them,  meanwhile,  whose 
name  was  Andrew,  found  his  more  distinguished  brother  and  brought  liim  to  Jesus  ;  and 
liow  Jesus  looked  ui)on  tliat  brother,  and,  perceiving  wliat  he  was  to  bec(nue,  said  : 
"  Thou  art  t«'imon,  the  son  of  Jona  ;  thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas  "  (<'.  c,  Peter). 

Does  not  this  narrative  decilare  itself  to  be  the  work  of  an  eye-witness,  by  almost 
every  line  ?  For  so  brief  a  paragraph,  the  number  of  particulars  mentioned  is  very 
great.  And  they  are  such  particulars  as  a  deeply  interested  witness  might  be  exftected 
to  remember.  If  the  writer  was  the  Apostle  John,  the  day  when  these  events  took  place 
was  a  day  never  to  be  forgotten  by  him — a  veritable  turning-point  in  his  life,  to  which 
he  would  look  back  with  peculiar  gratitude  as  the  beginning  of  his  fellowship  with 
Christ.  It  is  not  therefore  a  matter  of  surprise  that  he  should  be  able  to  sketch  so  bold 
and  distinct  and  perfect  a  picture  of  it.  Nor  is  it  strange  that  he  should  have  ventured 
to  differ,  as  he  seems  to  do,  without  a  word  of  explanation,  from  the  earlier  Evangelists, 
both  as  to  the  time  when  the  four  leading  disciples  began  to  follow  Jesus,  and  as  to  the 
time  when  the  Lord  gave  to  Simon  his  new  name.  I  do  not  say  or  believe  that  there 
is  any  real  contradiction  between  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  first  three  on  either  of  these 
points ;  but  I  think  there  is  a  difference  of  representation  that  cannot  readily  be  ac- 
counted for,  without  supposing  the  Fourth  Grospel  to  be  true,  and  the  testimony  of  an 
original  witness.  Everything  is  credible  and,  indeed,  natural,  if  this  Gospel  be  received 
as  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John ;  but  much  is  surprising,  if  it  be  ascribed  to  some 
unknown  Christian  of  the  second  century.  The  picture  before  us  is  too  simple  and 
vivid,  too  minute  in  detail,  and  independent  in  character,  to  be  the  work  of  a 
falsarina. 

Equally  graphic  is  the  next  paragraph,  which  relates  what  was  done  on  the  following 
day,  viz. :  how  Philip  was  found  by  the  Lord  as  the  latter  was  about  to  go  forth  into 
Galilee,  and  then  how  Nathanael  was  found  by  Philip.  Especially  fresh  and  spicy  is 
the  conversation  between  Philip  and  Nathanael,  while  that  between  Nathanael  and 
Christ  is  more  striking  and  original  still.  It  will  also  be  observed  that  the  native  place 
of  Philip  is  mentioned,  with  an  added  notice  that  it  was  the  native  place  of  Andrew  and 
Peter  as  well.  With  no  less  particularity  does  the  Evangelist  describe  the  events  of  the 
next  day — the  marriage  and  miracle  in  Cana  of  Galilee.  All  these  paragraphs  appear 
to  be  the  story  of  an  eye-witness,  of  one  who  was  present  when  the  deputation  ques- 
tioned John  the  Bajjtist  on  the  first  day,  when  the  Baptist  pointed  out  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  on  the  second  day,  when  he  pointed  him  out  again,  on  the  third  daj',  and  two 
of  his  own  disciples  followed  Christ  to  his  abode,  when  Jesus  went  to  Galilee  on  the 
fourth  day,  and  when  he  turned  the  water  into  wine  on  the  fifth  day. 

Another  portion  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  may  be  studied  from  the  same  point  of  view- 
namely,  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  the  Samaritan  woman  at  Jacob's  weU  (4 :  5-45X 
But  our  study  of  it  must  be  brief.  Reference  may,  however,  be  made  in  a  single 
paragraph  to  several  particulars.  Here  are  allusions  to  sceneri/ — e.  g. ,  to  the  deep  well, 
the  adjacent  mountain,  the  neighboring  city,  the  fertile  plain  ;  to  historic  facts — as  the  con- 
nection of  Jacob  with  the  well,  the  non-intercourse  of  Jews  and  Samaritans,  thd  wor- 
ship of  the  foi'mer  in  Jerusalem  and  of  the  latter  in  Gerizim  ;  to  social  customs — for  the 
disciples,  it  is  said,  "  marvelled  that  he  was  speaking  with  (a)  woman,"  and,  notwith- 
standing their  non-intercourse  with  Samaritans,  went  into  the  city  and  mingled  with  the 
people  enough  to  buy  food  of  them  ;  and,  perhaps,  to  the  season  of  the  year — "  Say  ye 
not,  there  are  yet  four  months,  and  then  cometh  harvest?"  In  all  these  respects  the 
narrative  appears  to  be  remarkably  true  to  place,  age,  and  circumstances. 


26  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

But  the  question  of  the  woman,  addressed  to  the  men  in  the  city,  seems  to  bear  the 
stamp  of  originality  in  a  peculiar  degree.  According  to  the  narrative  the  woman  evi- 
dently believed  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ ;  would  not  a  writer  of  fiction  have  made  her 
intimate  this  belief  in  her  question? — even  as  the  Common  English  Version  :  "  Is  not 
this  the  Christ  ?  ' '  intimates  it  ?  But  according  to  the  Grreek  narrative  she  did  not.  For 
some  reason  she  saw  fit  to  speak  as  if  she  were  herself  in  doubt,  and  even  a  little  in- 
clined to  think  that  he  was  not  the  Christ, — (m^"  oStos  ^(rri.v  6  Xpurros), — though  she  was 
nevertheless  anxious  to  have  the  judgment  of  her  neighbors  on  the  point.  Sa3's  Grodet  : 
"She  believes  more  than  she  saj's  ;  but  she  does  not  venture  to  assume  even  as  probable 
so  great  news.  Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  this  little  trait."  Possibly  it 
would  be  right  to  say  that  because  she  was  a  woman,  and  because  she  was  such  a  woman, 
she  felt  that  the  people  to  whom  she  spoke  would  be  more  influenced  by  the  fticts  she 
reported  if  she  did  not  seem  to  draw,  with  too  great  confidence,  the  highest  possible 
inference  from  them. 

jMen  are  sometimes  too  proud  to  be  guided  in  their  judgment,  especially  by  women, 
and  women  are  sometimes  keen-sighted  enough  to  perceive  this.  If  this  woman  had 
known  human  nature  perfectly,  I  question  whether  she  could  have  made  a  report  of 
Christ's  words  better  calculated  to  lead  the  men  of  Sychar  to  consider  fairly  the  claims 
of  Jesus.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  a  writer  of  fiction  in  the  second  century  would 
scarcely  have  had  so  subtle  a  perception  of  the  workings  of  a  woman's  mind  as  to  put 
into  her  mouth  this  form  of  question. 

But  how,  it  may  i)erl)aps  be  asked,  could  the  Apostle  John  have  learned  the  precise 
form  or  purport  of  this  woman's  question  to  the  men  of  the  city?  We  answer,  from  the 
men  themselves,  as  he  met  and  conversed  with  them  during  the  two  days  spent  by  Jesus 
and  his  disciples  in  Sychar  or  Shechem.  Or  how,  it  may  again  be  asked,  could  John 
have  learned  the  substance  of  the  remarkable  conversation  of  Christ  with  the  woman  at 
the  well  ?  We  answer,  by  hearing  it,  as  he  remained  at  the  well  with  Jesus  ;  for  it  is 
unnecessary  to  suppose  that  all  the  disciples  went  into  the  city  to  buy  food.  At  the 
same  time  we  must  likewise  admit  that  Jesus  himself  mnj/  have  given  an  account  of  the 
conversation  to  the  disciple  whom  he  loved,  or  that  this  disciple  may  have  learned  it 
from  the  woman.  The  first  sui:)position,  however,  seems  to  be  more  iDrobable  than  either 
of  the  others. 

As  another  instance  of  graphic  narrative  we  may  refer  to  the  ninth  chapter,  which 
contains  the  aton/  of  the  Lords  giving  sight  to  a  nidii  icho  had  been  blind  from  his  birth, 
together  with  a  sketch  of  the  transactions  springing  out  of  that  miracle.  Perhaps  no 
person  ever  read  the  chapter  without  a  feeling  of  admiration  at  the  firmness,  the 
honesty,  the  good  sense,  and  the  quickness  of  retort  displayed  bj'^  the  man  whose  con- 
genital blindness  had  been  removed,  or  without  a  feeling  of  regret,  if  not  of  shame,  at 
the  timid  and  evasive  answer  of  his  parents,  when  thej'^  were  questioned  hy  the  Phar- 
isees, or  without  a  feeling  of  deep  indignation  at  the  malicious  and  unscrupulous  enmity 
of  the  Jewish  leaders  to  Jesus.  The  whole  narrative  is  powerful — instinct  with  reality 
and  life.  Especially  do  we  admire  the  man  who  washed  in  the  pool  of  Siloam  and 
returned  seeing,  when  he  was  brought  before  the  rulers.  As  he  stands  there  and 
answers,  at  once  for  himself  and  for  his  Benefactor,  he  is  in  our  judgment  a  model 
witness.  He  clings  to  the  simple  truth  with  a  lion's  grip.  His  insight  is  as  clear  as  his 
new-found  sight.  With  only  a  beggar's  education,  his  logic  is  sharp  and  strong  as 
reason  itself,  and  his  attack  on  the  position  of  his  judges  terrible  as  the  stroke  of 
a  catapult.     While  his  heart  is  singing:    "Hail,  holy  light,  offspring  of  heaven,  first- 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  27 

born,"  his  intellect  and  conscience  and  purpose  are  unshaken  by  the  deadly  scowl  of 
fanaticism  armed  with  power.  But  there  is  one  touch  of  nature  in  this  narrative, 
which  has  long  seemed  to  me  inexplicable  if  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written  by  a 
folsarius  of  the  second  century.  For  such  a  writer  must  be  presumed  to  have  filled 
in  the  details  of  the  narrative  by  his  own  imagination,  since  it  is  scarcely  possible  that 
they  could  have  reached  him  in  this  furm  by  means  of  oral  tradition.  The  touch  of 
nature  to  which  I  allude  is  the  way  in  which  his  neighbors  describe  the  man  whose  eyes 
had  now,  for  the  first  time,  been  opened  to  see  the  sun.  For  they  ask,  not  as  the 
thought  of  his  blindness  and  its  miraculous  removal  would  naturally  shape  their  questioii : 
Is  not  this  he  that  was  horn  blind  f  but  rather:  "Is  not  this  he  that  sat  and  hegr/eAf 
(6  Ka.irit>.ivo^  KoL  npoaaiTmv),  And  I  do  not  think  it  Uncharitable  to  suspect  that  these  ''  neigh- 
bors and  they  who  saw  him  aforetime  that  he  was  a  beggar"  (Rev.  Ver.),  had  been 
more  troubled  by  the  man's  begging  than  by  his  blindness;  and  therefore  the  fact 
that  he  was  wont  to  ask  an  alms  was  more  deejjly  impressed  on  their  minds  than  the  fact 
that  he  could  not  see.  Hence,  it  was  perfectly  natural  for  them  to  employ  the  designation 
here  reported.  But  I  doubt  whether  any  writer  of  the  second  century  would  have  put 
these  words  into  the  lips  of  "  the  neighbors,"  any  sooner  than  he  would  have  put  them 
into  the  lips  of  Jesus,  or  of  the  Jewish  rulers.  In  describing  this  great  miracle,  the 
giving  of  sight  hij  Jesus  to  one  born  blind  would  have  been  the  absorbing  idea ;  and  a 
perfect  side-stroke  in  his  picture,  like  the  one  here  introduced,  would  have  been  beyond 
the  skill  of  any  writer  of  that  age.  If  not,  this  writer  must  have  been,  as  I  have  in- 
timated, more  than  once,  a  great  unknown,  a  prodigy  in  his  generation. 

Another  portion  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  which  is  rendered  peculiarly  graphic  and  life- 
like by  the  insertion  of  circumstances  non-essential  in  a  doctrinal  respect,  is  the  narrative 
of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  in  the  eleventh  chapter.  jNIej'er  remarks  that  "  the 
narrative  is  distinguished  for  its  thoughtful  tenderness,  certainty,  and  truthfulness." 
Let  us  notice  a  few  particulars  which  are  best  accounted  for  by  supposing  that  this 
chapter  was  written  by  an  apostolic  witness,  and  therefore  by  John,  the  brother  of 
James.  1.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a  writer  of  the  second  century  would  have 
dared  to  ascribe  this  miracle  to  Christ  without  having  any  evidence  that  he  wrought 
such  a  miracle,  near  the  close  of  his  ministry,  in  Bethany  ;  and  it  is  erpially  difficult  to 
believe  that  he  could  have  had  satisfictorv  knowledge  of  the  miracle  in  question.  But 
if  Lazarus  was  raised  from  the  dead,  and  if  John  was  present  when  this  occurred,  it  is 
perfectly  credible  that  the  aged  apostle  may  have  been  led  by  the  Spirit  and  providence 
of  God  to  insert  an  account  of  it  in  his  Gospel.  2.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a  writer 
of  the  second  century  either  knew  through  oral  tradition,  or  invented  without  the  help 
of  tradition,  the  striking  particulars  of  this  narrative.  These  particulars  are  too 
numerous  for  separate  examination,  but  upon  close  scrutiny  the.y  will  be  found  entirely 
self-consistent  and  wonderfully  interesting.  And  thej'^  are  withal  such  particulars  as 
a  loving  disciple  might  be  expected  to  remember  with  satisfaction  and  to  put  on 
record  with  his  account  of  the  miracle  itself.  3.  The  impression  which  this  narrative 
gives  of  the  distinctive  traits  of  Martha  and  Mary  exactly  accords  with  the  impression 
which  Luke's  account  of  another  scene  gives  (10  :  38  sq).  For  Luke  says  that  "a  cer- 
tain woman,  named  Martha,  received  him  [J.  e.,  Jesus]  into  her  house.  And  she  had  a 
sister  called  Mary,  who  also  sat  at  the  Lord's  feet,  and  heard  his  word.  But  Martha 
was  distracted  about  much  serving ;  and  she  came  up  to  him,  and  said  :  Lord,  dost 
thou  not  care  that  my  sister  did  leave  me  to  serve  alone  ?  "  etc.  (Rev.  Ver.).  To  judge  the 
sisters  by  this  account,  Martha  was  probably  older  than  Mary,   and  likewise  more 


28  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

energetic,  practical,  and  pains-taking  in  domestic  aifairs,  bearing  the  chief  burden 
of  care  and  service ;  but  at  the  same  time  not  afraid  to  speak  her  mind,  even  to  a 
guest ;  while  Mary  was  more  gentle,  docile,  appreciative,  spiritual,  and  eager  to  catch 
every  word  that  fell  from  the  lips  of  their  divine  Teacher.  It  may  also  be  conjectured 
from  the  language  used  by  Luke  that  they  were  in  easy,  if  not  in  affluent  circum- 
stances. Now,  without  reproducing  a  phrase  or  incident  from  this  earlier  narrative, 
the  impression  made  by  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  concerning  the  traits 
of  character  and  the  circumstances  of  these  sisters,  is  the  same  as  that  made  by  Luke. 
Thus,  wheu  Martha  heard  that  Jesus  Avas  coming,  she  went  and  met  him,  entering  at 
once  into  conversation  with  him,  and  expressing  her  confidence  that  if  he  had 
been  with  them  her  brother  would  not  have  died;  but  not  accepting  readily  the 
Lord's  intimation  that  Lazarus  might  even  now  be  recalled  to  life.  Moreover, 
when  Jesus  commanded  the  stone  to  be  taken  away  from  the  door  of  the  tomb, 
it  was  Martha  who  promptly  raised  an  objection  to  this  act.  On  the  other  hand, 
Mar}'  remained  at  home  until  sent  for  by  Jesus,  when  she  rose  quickly  and  wont  unto 
him.  Seeing  him,  she  fell  down  at  his  feet,  saying  unto  him:  "Lord,  if  thou  hadst 
been  here,  my  brother  had  not  died."  This  was  the  only  word  that  she  is  reported  to 
have  spoken.  What  more  she  did  was  to  weep  in  silence,  and  we  know  that  her  weep- 
ing went  to  the  heart  of  Jesus.  Perhaps  it  will  not  be  making  too  fine  a  point,  if  I  call 
attention  to  the  first  sentence  uttered  by  Martha,  and  the  only  one  uttered  by  Mary  upon 
meeting  Jesus,  as  substantially  identical.  This  identity  may  be  taken  as  an  indication 
that  the  words  had  been  often  on  their  lips  during  the  last  four  days — a  sorrowful  re- 
frain as  the  sisters  communed  together:  "If  He  had  been  here,  our  brother  would  not 
have  died."  In  this,  then,  the  substantial  identitj'  of  their  first  word  to  Jesus,  I  per- 
ceive a  very  delicate  note  of  truth,  an  echo  or  reminiscence  of  private  and  sisterly  con- 
verse, expressing  the  deepest  feeling  of  their  hearts.  There  is,  indeed,  a  slight  differ- 
ence between  the  Greek  sentence  used  by  Mary  and  the  one  used  by  Martha.  Accord- 
ing to  Meyer,  the  pronoun  my  (f^o")  is  a  little  more  noticeable  in  Mary's  remark  than  it 
is  in  Martha's.  In  other  words,  it  is  slightly  emphatic.  This,  however,  the  position  of 
the  pronoun  my  in  the  Greek  sentence,  is  the  only  difference  between  the  expression 
used  by  Mary  and  that  used  by  Martha ;  and  it  is  too  slight  to  require  explanation. 

Very  beautiful  and  trustful  was  the  message  which  these  sisters  sent  to  Christ  bej'ond 
the  Jordan  :  "Lord,  behold  he  whom  thou  lovest  is  sick."  Perhaps  they  knew  that 
Jesus  could  not  visit  them  without  extreme  peril  to  his  own  life,  and  therefore  would  not 
ask  him  to  come,  though  they  could  not  refrain  from  letting  him  know  of  their  brother's 
sickness.  Perhaps  they  had  learned  that  his  Messianic  work  had  claims  upon  his  time 
more  sacred  even  than  those  of  personal  friendship.  At  any  rate  their  message  was 
never  surpassed  in  delicacy  and  appropriateness,  and  we  instinctivelj'  imagine  that  it  was 
dictated  by  the  younger  sister. 

Again,  in  harmony  with  the  respectable  standing  of  the  family,  suggested  by  the  ac- 
count of  Luke,  is  the  representation  that  "  many  of  the  Jews  had  come  to  Martha  and 
Mary  to  console  them  concerning  their  brother"  (Rev.  Ver.).  For  the  writer  of 
this  Gospel  commonly  intends  by  "the  Jews"  the  leaders  of  the  people,  and  especially 
those  in  office,  as  members  of  the  Sanhedrin.  The  fict  that  "  many  of  the  Jews  "  had 
come  to  console  the  mourning  sisters,  renders  it  probable  that  some  of  them  were  ene- 
mies of  Christ  (see  v.  46),  while  a  knowledge  of  this  on  the  part  of  the  sisters  accounts 
for  the  circumstance  that  Martha  spoke  to  Mary  "secretly,"  saying:  "The  Master  is 
here,  and  calleth  thee"    (Kev.  Ver.).      For  evidently  she  wished  her  to  go  to  Jesus 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  29 


without  being  followed  by  the  company — showing  thereby  a  wise  and  friendly  in- 
terest in  Christ.  For  she  probably  fc^ared,  as  the  event  proved,  that  nothing  which  Jesus 
might  do  or  say  would  diuiiuisli  their  hatred,  or  change  their  purpose  to  worlc  his  ruin. 

Another  point  may  be  noted.  The  writer  of  this  Gospel  gives  a  certain  precedence  to 
Mary,  thus  :  "Now  a  certain  man  was  sick,  Lazarus  of  Bethany,  of  the  town  of  Mary 
and  her  sister  Martha.  And  it  was  tliat  Mary  wliO  anointed  the  Lord  witli  (jintuieiit, 
and  wiped  his  feet  with  her  hair,  whose  brother  Lazarus  was  sick"  (Rev.  Ver.). 
Two  remarks  are  suggested  by  these  verses  :  (1)  That  in  spite  of  the  precedence  assigned 
to  Martha  by  the  passage  in  Luke,  and,  in  some  respects  also,  by  the  narrative  under 
consideration  here,  Mary,  at  the  time  when  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written,  had  the 
first  place  in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  and,  as  he  appears  to  assume,  in  the  minds  of  those 
who  would  read  his  Gospel.  (2)  That  the  reason  for  this  greater  prominence  of  Mary  is 
alluded  to  by  the  writer's  saying,  that  tliis  Mary  was  the  one  "who  anointed  the  Lord 
with  ointment,  and  wiped  his  feet  with  her  hair,"  as  if  there  had  been  something 
peculiar  in  the  service  thus  performed  wliich  had  given  distinction  to  Mary.  And, 
according  to  the  description  of  the  anointing,  which  is  afterwards  given  in  this  Gospel, 
there  had  been  something  very  remarkable  connected  with  it  ;  namely,  the  murmuring  of 
Judas  Iscariot  and  the  approval  of  Jesus. 

If  now,  looking  at  these  features  of  the  narrative,  we  ask  whether  it  reads  like  the 
story  of  an  eye-witness,  or  like  that  of  a  person  living  a  hundred  years  later,  I  think  the 
answer  will  not  be  doubtful.  There  are  too  many  delicate  harmonies,  obviously  natural, 
to  allow  of  hesitation.  Thej'  belong  to  the  class  of  undesigned  coincidences.  To  account 
for  them  we  must  either  suppose  that  the  story  is  true,  which  is  an  adequate  explanation 
of  all,  or  that  it  is  the  work  of  a  consummate  artist  whose  genius  has  never  been  matched. 
And  by  those  who  adopt  the  latter  hypothesis,  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  this  great 
but  unknown  literary  artist  was  a  contemporary  of  Justin  MartjT  !  that  he  was  a  man 
who  never  saw  Jesus  or  felt  the  inspiration  of  intimate  communion  with  him  !  and  withal, 
that  he  was  a  man  who  could  solemnly  testify  that  his  fiction  was  a  record  of  actual 
words  and  deeds  !  The  demand  is  too  great.  To  believe  this  surpasses  our  credulity. 
At  least  we  cannot  believe  it  while  the  other  alternative  is  ofi'ered  to  our  acceptance. 

In  the  thirteenth  chapter  we  find  another  piece  of  historic  description  remarkable  for 
its  particularity  and  vividness.  Jesus  and  his  disciples  are  represented  as  about  lo  par- 
take of  the  paschal  supper,  in  fact,  as  having  taken  their  places  in  a  reclining  posture 
about  the  table.  Jesus,  then,  as  we  are  told,  before  the  supper  actually  began,  "riseth 
from  supper,  layeth  aside  his  (outer)  garments,  taketh  a  towel  and  girdeth  himself,  pour- 
eth  water  into  the  basin,  and  began  to  wash  his  disciples'  feet,  and  to  wipe  them  with 
the  towel  "  (literallj-).  What  could  be  more  minute  or  graphic  than  this  ?  Does  it  not 
read  like  the  account  of  a  deeply  interested  spectator  or  witness  ?  But  the  question  rises 
to  our  lips  :  With  what  emotions  did  the  disciples  see  all  this?  Why  did  they  not  spring 
to  their  feet  to  take  their  Lord's  place  in  the  service  which  he  was  evidently  preparing 
to  render  ?  Were  they  overawed  by  something  in  his  look  or  bearing  which  forbade  re-  ■ 
monstrance  ?  Or  were  they  so  filled  with  a  spirit  of  rivalry  as  to  who  should  be  greatest 
that  no  one  of  them  was  ready  to  take  the  place  of  a  servant?  There  is  some  reason, 
found  especially  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  22  :  24  sq.,  to  suspect  that  the  latter  may  have 
been  the  case,  though  nothing  in  this  narrative  directly  afiirms  it.  To  proceed  :  Now  as 
Jesus  was  thus  washing  and  wiping  his  disciples'  feet,  "  he  cometh,"  we  are  told  by  the 
Evangelist,  "to  Simon. Peter,"  and  was  met  by  the  question  :  "Lord,  dost  thou  wash  my 
feet? "    [Note  the  position  of  " my  "  (/^o")  in  the  Greek  sentence  :  is  it  only  slightly  em- 


30  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

phatic  ?]  This  question  of  Peter  implies  that  he  clearly  perceived  the  indecorum  of  his 
being  thus  served  by  his  Master,  though  it  does  not  show  that  he  was  wilUng  to  take  his 
Master's  place  and  complete  the  menial  service,  which  was  doubtless  suitable  to  the  occa- 
sion, if  not  required  by  it.  Then  Christ  answered  him  :  "  What  I  do  thou  knowest  not 
now,  but  thou  shalt  understand  hereafter"  (Rev.  Ver.).  This  answer  would  probably 
have  silenced  any  other  disciple  than  Peter.  But  he,  the  rash  and  positive,  replied : 
"Thou  shalt  never  wash  my  feet."  O  headstrong  man,  unwilling  to  trust  the  Son  of 
God  !  Thy  voice  will  soon  be  changed  ;  for  Jesus  now  answers  :  "If  I  wash  thee  not, 
thou  hast  no  part  with  me."  Peter  did  not  look  for  this,  and  his  next  words  reveal  a 
sudden  and  complete  revulsion  of  feeling :  "  Not  my  feet  onl.v,  but  also  my  hands  and  my 
head"  !  Yet  the  reaction  has  carried  him  too  far.  He  asks  for  something  that  Jesus 
had  neither  done  nor  proposed  to  do.  Peter's  frank,  bold,  impulsive  nature,  as  we  see, 
is  not  easily  trained  to  follow  the  will  of  another.  But  he  is  in  the  hands  of  a  wise  and 
jiatient  Teacher,  and  is  certain  to  learn  submission  at  last.  In  the  next  paragraph  we 
read  :  "  So  when  he  had  washed  their  feet,  and  taken  his  garments,  he  said  unto  them ' ' — 
going  on  to  explain  and  enforce  bj*  his  words  the  lesson  of  his  significant  action  in  wash- 
ing their  feet.  This  surely  is  the  record  of  a  loving  disciple  who  delights  to  recall  every 
look  and  act  of  his  Lord. 

And  it  is  followed  by  a  wonderfully  graphic  sketch  of  the  scene  in  which  the  be- 
trayer of  Jesus  was  pointed  out  and  sent  away  from  the  supper.  "When  Jesus  had 
tlius  said,  he  was  troubled  in  the  spirit  (/(«  sj^irit),  and  testified,  and  said.  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that  one  of  you  shall  betray  me.  The  disciples  looked  one  on 
another,  doubting  of  whom  he  spake.  There  was  at  the  table  reclining  in  Jesus'  bosom 
one  of  his  disciples,  whom  Jesus  loved.  Simon  Peter  therefore  beckoneth  to  him,  and 
saith  unto  him.  Tell  us  who  it  is  of  whom  he  speaketh.  He  leaning  back,  as  he  was  (or, 
thus),  on  Jesus'  breast,  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  who  is  it?  Jesus  therefore  answereth,  He 
it  is,  for  whom  I  shall  dip  the  sop,  and  give  it  him.  So  when  he  had  dipped  the  sop,  he 
taketh  and  giveth  it  to  Judas,  the  son  of  Simon  Iscariot.  And  after  the  sop,  then  en- 
tered Satan  into  him.  Jesus  therefore  saith  unto  him.  That  thou  doest,  do  quickly  (or, 
more  quichhi) !  Now  no  man  at  the  table  knew  for  what  intent  he  spak^e  this  unto  him. 
For  some  thought,  because  Judas  had  the  bag,  that  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Buy  what 
things  we  have  need  of  for  the  feast ;  or,  that  he  should  give  something  to  the  poor.  He 
then  having  received  the  sop  went  out  straightway:  and  it  was  night"  (Rev.  Ver.). 
This  life-picture  deserves  careful  study.  The  first  words  of  Jesus,  so  direct  and  une- 
quivocal ;  the  surprised  and  questioning  look  of  the  twelve  into  the  faces  of  one  another  ; 
the  description  of  the  exact  position  and  posture  of  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  ; 
the  beckoning  gesture  of  Peter  to  that  disciple  and  the  sotto-voce  question  which  fol- 
lowed ;  the  leaning  back  of  that  disciple  until  his  head  touched  the  breast  of  Jesus  ;  the 
substance  of  Peter's  request  convej^ed  by  him  in  a  low  voice  to  the  Lord  and  the  Lord's 
answer  addressed  to  that  disciple's  private  ear;  the  giving  of  the  sop  to  the  betrayer, 
thus  pointing  him  out  to  the  disciple  whom  he  loved  ;  the  open  word  to  Judas  as  the  sop 
was  given  to  him  ;  tlie  conjectures  of  some  of  the  disciples  as  to  what  that  word  signified, 
casting  suddenly  a  flash  of  light  upon  the  duties  of  Judas  as  treasurer  of  the  chosen 
band  ;  the  prompt  exit  of  the  traitor  from  the  room  and  the  house  ;  and  the  terse  com- 
ment picturing  the  out-side  darkness  into  which  the  betrayer  went :  it  teas  night: — all 
these  particulars  betoken  the  pen  of  an  eye-witness  who  was  at  least  a  warm  friend  of 
Jesus.  And  a  great  part  of  them  could  be  of  no  logical  use  in  a  Tendenzschrift,  such  as 
the  school  of  Baur  has  proclaimed  this  Grospel  to  be.     It  would  also  be  easy  to  show  that 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  31 

this  narrative  is  very  different  from  those  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  though  all  may  be 
true.  The  difference,  however,  is  greater  tlian  any  writer  save  an  eye-witne.ss  would  be 
likely  to  venture  upon,  if  he  were  acquainted  with  the  earlic^r  Gospels.  And  if  not  ac- 
quainted with  those  Gospels,  it  is  surprising  that  no  real  contradiction  between  his  narra- 
tive and  theirs  appears. 

Another  passage  which  sparkles  with  evidence,  derivable  from  unimportant  circum- 
stances, that  it  was  written  by  a  si)ectator  of  the  events  related,  is  a  i)aragraph  of  the 
eighteenth  chapter  (ver.  15-27).  Simon  Peter  is  said  to  have  followed  Jesus  when  the 
latter  was  led  from  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane  to  iiis  trial  in  the  city  ;  which  statement 
was  preliminary  to  a  record  of  Peter's  denials,  and  these  were  important  events, . 
fulfilling  tlie  words  of  Christ.  But  the  writer  of  the  Gospel  also  inserts  the  following 
interesting  particulars,  which  do  not  seem  to  be  essential  to  the  substance  of  the 
narrative,  viz.  :  another  disciple  followed  Jesus  also,  and  that  other  disciple,  being 
known  to  the  high  priest,  and  therefore  no  doubt  to  the  portress  and  servants,  was 
allowed  to  enter  without  remonstrance  into  the  court  of  the  high  priest  witli  Jesus. 
But  Peter,  being  unknown  to  the  high  priest's  household,  could  not  thus  enter,  but 
stood  without  for  a  time.  Therefore  the  other  disciple  went  out  and,  speaking  to  the 
maid  who  was  door-keeper,  brought  in  Peter.  But,  as  Peter  was  entering,  the  door- 
maid  asked  him,  doubtfully:  "Art  thou  also  one  of  this  man's  disciples?"  (Rev. 
Ver.)  And  Peter's  first  denial  was  uttered — an  essential  part  of  the  history.  Then 
follows  a  statement  that  "the  servants  and  officers  were  standing  there,  having  made  a 
fire  of  coals,  for  it  was  cold  ;  and  they  were  warming  themselves  ;  and  Peter  also  was 
with  them,  standing  and  warming  himself"  (Rev.  Ver).  This  picture  is  perfect, 
and  it  represents  a  scene  in  the  central  court  awhile  after  Peter  was  introduced  ;  but  it 
cannot  be  considered  essential  to  the  history  in  the  same  sense  as  the  record  of  what 
next  occurred  in  that  group  is  essential  to  it.  For,  as  Peter  was  standing  there,  some  of 
the  group  said  to  him:  "Art  thou  also  one  of  his  disciples?"  (Rev.  Ver.)  The 
question  being  so  framed,  perhaps  in  courtesy,  as  to  suggest  that  a  negative  answer  was 
expected  (Buttmann,  p.  248,  1st  P.).  It  came,  and  was  probably,  as  in  the  preceding 
instance,  heard  by  the  writer  of  this  Gospel.  Next  a  very  exact  specification  occurs. 
"One  of  the  servants  of  the  high  priest,  being  his  kinsman  whose  ear  Peter  cut  off, 
saith  :  'Did  not  I  see  thee  in  the  garden  with  him?'  "  And  in  this  case  the  question, 
as  one  might  conjecture  beforehand,  is  so  framed  as  to  anticipate,  or  perhaps,  if  we 
could  hear  the  tone  of  voice,  to  demand  an  affirmative  answer  (Buttmann,  p.  247).  But 
it  came  not ;  for  "Peter  denied  "  the  third  time,  "  and  immediately  the  cock  crew." 

Now  this  is  to  me,  on  the  very  face  of  it,  a  truthful  as  well  as  a  very  graphic 
narrative,  and  I  cannot  suppress  the  conviction  that  it  is  far  more  reasonable  to  ascribe 
it  to  the  Apostle  John,  as  "the  other  disciple,"  and  an  eye-witness  of  the  events 
described,  than  to  ascribe  it  to  an  unknown  writer  of  the  second  century,  who  drew 
upon  his  imagination  for  his  facts,  or  at  least  for  the  side-touches,  which  give  life  and 
naturalness  to  his  picture. 

Another  sketch  in  this  Gospel  may  be  associated  with  the  one  just  considered,  viz. : 
the  story  of  the  runnmg  of  Peter  and  another  disciple  to  the  tomb  after  Christ  had  ri'^en 
(ch.  20  :  3-8).  It  reads  thus  :  "  Peter  therefore  went  forth,  and  the  other  disciple,  and 
they  went  toward  the  tomb.  And  they  ran  both  together  ;  and  the  other  disciple  outran 
Peter,  and  came  first  to  the  tomb;  and  stooping  and  looking  in,  he  seeth  the  linen 
cloths  lying  ;  yet  entered  he  not  in.  Simon  Peter  therefore  also  cometh,  following  him, 
and  entered  into  the  tomb  ;    and  he  beholdeth  the  linen  cloths  lying,  and  the  napkia 


32  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

that  was  upon  his  head,  not  lying  with  the  linen  cloths,  but  rolled  up  in  a  place  by 
itself.  Then  entered  in  therefore  the  other  disciple  also,  who  came  first  to  the  tomb, 
and  he  saw  and  beheved "  (Rev.  Ver.).  Can  we  suppose  that  these  details  are  the 
fruit  of  imagination  or  of  oral  tradition?  Or,  granting  that  such  a  supposition  is  not 
strictly  incredible,  is  it  the  fairest,  the  most  rational  account  which  can  be  given  of  their 
origin?  I  am  willing  to  submit  the  case  to  the  judgment  of  any  impartial  reader — sure 
that  his  verdict  will  be  favorable  to  the  apostolic  authorship  of  the  sketch.  And  the 
same  result  would  follow  a  study  of  the  next  paragraph  (ver.  11-18),  which  describes  the 
Lord's  first  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene. 

Other  parts  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  especially  the  scene  described  in  chapter 
twenty-one,  might  be  examined  under  this  head  ;  but  these  are  enough  for  our  present 
purpose.  They  all  point  in  one  direction,  towards  the  Johannean  authorship  of  this 
Gospel,  and  their  testimony  is  so  clear  and  positive  that  we  do  not  expect  it  will  ever  be 
set  aside. 

Attention  may  be  paid,  thirdh/,  to  the  fact  that  namesi  and  facts  are  mentioned  m  the 
Fourth  Gospel  which  icoidd  not  p)-nh(d}iy  have  been  hioicn  to  a  icriter  of  the  second 
century.  We  have  already  referred  to  the  fact,  stated  by  this  Gospel,  that  another 
disciple  followed  Peter  on  the  evening  after  our  Lord's  betrayal,  and  that  the  other 
disciple  icas  known  to  the  high  priest,  and  that  he  was  therefore  suffered  to  enter  freely 
into  the  court  of  the  high  priest.  This  agrees  with  the  circumstance  that  the  name  of 
the  high  priest  is  mentioned  repeatedly,  together  with  the  fact  that  Annas  was  his 
father-in-law.  The  writer  was,  therefore,  somewhat  familiar  with  the  high  priest's 
famil.y.  But  this  familiarity  is  thought  to  be  improbable.  Would  Caiaphas  have 
allowed  himself  to  be  on  friendly  terms  with  a  disciple  of  Christ?  Would  he  have 
consented  to  recognize  such  a  man  as  an  acquaintajice  ?  Must  we  not  rather  pronounce 
this  acquaintance  a  fiction  of  the  writer,  and  conclude  that  he  could  not  have  been  an 
apostle  ?  I  am  unable  to  do  this.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  probable  that  the  rulers  were 
as  yet  greatly  embittered  against  the  disciples  of  Christ.  For  some  reason,  the  Lord 
himself  was  so  prominent,  so  principal  and  towering  an  object,  that  his  followers  were 
deemed  of  little  account.  Their  time  had  not  yet  come.  They  were  still  pupils,  not 
champions.  Jesus  stood  practically  alone  in  all  his  great  encounters  with  the  Jews. 
And  so  I  think  it  altogether  credible  that  John  was  known  to  the  high  priest — more 
credible  than  that  a  skillful  writer  should  have  imagined  this  without  cause. 

Again,  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  mentions  the  name  of  the  high  priest's 
servant  whose  right  ear  was  cut  off  by  the  impetuous  stroke  of  Peter  in  the  garden, 
and  this  notice  agrees  with  the  supposition  that  the  unnamed  disciple  who  was  known 
to  the  high  priest  was  the  writer  of  this  Gospel.  It  is  quite  natural  that  one  who  was 
so  well  known  to  the  portress  as  to  be  admitted  without  question,  knew  the  names  of 
other  servants  of  Caiaphas,  or  would  be  likely  to  learn  them.  But  is  it  probable  that  a 
writer  of  the  second  century  would  have  known  that  the  name  of  the  wounded  servant 
was  Malchus?  Or,  if  not,  that  he  would  have  assigned  him  a  name,  when  there  was  no 
necessity  for  his  doing  it  ?  Instead  of  pursuing  this  enumeration  of  instances  further,  we 
will  show  the  importance  which  others  have  seen  in  the  line  of  inquiry  adopted  by  us  in 
the  preceding  pages.  In  1865,  Dr.  Otto  Thenius,  an  eminent  Biblical  scholar  of  Germany, 
addi-essed  an  open  letter  to  Dr.  David  F.  Strauss,  in  which  he  defends  the  Johannean 
authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  against  the  assaults  of  that  famous  critic.  In  one  part 
of  the  letter  he  enumerates  the  following  circumstances  as  bearing  the  stamp  of  reality, 
and  as  furnishing  proof  that  the  Gospel  was  written  by  one  who  knew  whereof  he 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  33 

affirmed  ;  viz. :  "  That  Jesus  had  observed  Nathanael  under  the  fig  tree  (1  :  48)  ;  that  his 
brothers  did  not  believe  on  him,  while  officers  of  the  Jews  were  impressed  by  his  dis- 
courses ;  that  Nicodemus  took  his  part,  and  the  Sanhedrists  in  their  passion  falsely 
asserted  that  no  prophet  cometh  out  of  (lalilee  (7  :  5,  46,  50,  52) ;  that  during  the  rainy 
season  Jesus  taught  in  a  sheltered  place  (10  :  22,  23)  ;  that  Mary  rose  and  went  to  Jesus 
only  when  called  by  Martha  (11  :  20,  28,  29)  ;  that  Judas  had  the  common  purse,  and 
Jesus  said  unto  him  :  "That  thou  doest  do  quickly  "  (12  :  6  ;  13:7);  that  a  Roman  cohort 
assisted  in  taking  Jesus  ;  that  the  servant  wounded  at  his  capture  was  named  .Malchus, 
and  that  it  was  Peter  who  cut  off  his  ear  (18  :  3,  10,  2()) ;  that  one  of  the  servants  who 
was  standing  by  at  the  examination  struck  Jesus  with  his  hand  (18:  22);  that  Pilate 
sought  to  excite  sympathy  for  Jesus  in  the  hearts  of  his  accusers  by  crying:  "Behold 
the  man  !  "  that  he  sat  down  on  the  judgment-seat  at  a  place  called  the  Pavement,  or  in 
Hebrew,  Gabbatha  ;  and  that  he  refused  the  request  of  the  chief  priests  that  he  would 
change  the  superscription  on  the  cross  (19  :  5,  13,  21,  22) ;  that  the  place  of  crucifixion 
was  near  the  city;  that  four  soldiers  performed  the  dreadful  deed,  and  that  his 
mother  was  present  as  a  beholder  (19  :  20,  23,  25);  that  the  grave  was  in  a  garden 
(19:  41);  and  that  Peter  saw  the  napkin  lying  by  itself  (20:  7)."  With  this 
extract  from  Thenius  may  be  profitably  compared  the  words  of  Sanday,  in  his  able 
work  on  the  "Authorship  and  Historical  Character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,"  (p.  163  sq.): 
"The  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  stands  out  a  single  isolated  figure,  with  a  loftiness 
and  intensity  to  which  there  is  hardly  a  parallel  to  be  found  in  history  ;  with  a  force 
of  character  that  transmutes  and  transforms  all  the  more  ductile  matter  that  comes 
within  its  range,  and  yet  with  a  certain  childlike  simplicity  in  the  presence  of  external 
facts.  This  is  not  the  personality  of  great  writers  of  fiction  in  any  community  or  time  ; 
least  of  all  is  it  the  personalitj'  of  one  writing  under  a  feigned  name,  and  asseverating 
all  the  time  that  he  records  nothing  but  that  which  he  has  heard  and  seen.  It  must  be 
remembered  too  that,  if  it  is  a  fiction,  it  is  not  merely  a  fiction  that  would  fit  in  equally 
well  to  any  point  of  space  or  time.  It  is  a  fiction  which  is  laid  in  definite  local- 
ities, and  in  the  midst  of  circumstances  and  a  circle  of  ideas  that  are  remarkably 
definite.  It  is  written  after  a  series  of  tremendous  changes  had  swept  away  all 
the  landmarks  to  which  it  might  have  been  afiixed.  The  siege  and  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  together  with  the  rapid  progress  and  organization  of  Christianitj',  caused 
a  breach  between  the  ages  before  and  behind  it,  which  could  be  crossed  only  by 
memory',  not  by  imagination.  Those  who  deny  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the 
Gospel  require  the  supposed  author  of  it  to  transgress  the  conditions  of  his  age  and 
position,  and  to  throw  himself  back  into  another  set  of  conditions  entirely  different 
from  his  own.  They  do  not  indeed  do  this  in  words  ;  but  this  is,  as  I  have  tried 
to  show,  and  as  I  think  we  cannot  but  see,  because  they  have  failed  to  take  in,  by  far, 
the  larger  part  of  the  phenomena.  The  hypothesis  of  apostolic  and  Johannean  author- 
ship satisfies  these,  while  it  satisfies  also,  as  I  believe,  all  the  other  phenomena  as  well. 
It  gives  a  consistent  and  intelligible  account  of  all  the  facts,  and  I  venture  to  say  that 
no  other  hypothesis  as  j'et  propounded  has  done  so." 

II.   TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  AS  A  RECORD  OF 
THE  DISCOURSES  OF  JESUS. 

A  study  of  this  Gospel  brings  to  light,  as  we  have  seen,  many  indications  that  it  was 

written  by  one  of  the  apostles,  and  therefore  by  John,  the  brother  of  James.     But  these 

indications  are  found  principally  in  the  narrative  parts  of  the  Gospel,  as  distinguished 

C 


34  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

from  the  discourses  of  Jesus.  An  examination  of  the  latter  reveals  the  fact  that  they 
differ  materially  in  style  and  thought  from  the  discourses  preserved  in  the  Synoptical 
Gospels.  Two  questions  are  therefore  suggested,  viz.:  (1)  Is  the  difference  referred  to 
of  such  a  nature  as  to  make  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  improbable, 
in  spite  of  evidence  from  other  sources  in  its  favor  ?  (2)  Is  the  difference  of  such  a  na- 
ture as  to  disprove  the  substantial  correctness  of  that  part  of  the  record  ?  ^ 

(1)  An  argument  against  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the  Gospel,  founded  on  a  dif- 
ference of  style  and  thought  between  the  discourses  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  that  Gospel  and 
the  discourses  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  must  rest  upon  one  or  more  of 
the  following  assumptions  :  (a)  That  the  Synoptical  report  of  Christ's  discourses  is  trust- 
worthy in  respect  to  style  and  thought  ;  for  if  it  is  not,  the  report  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
may  be  correct,  though  it  furnishes  a  type  of  discourse  differing  from  any  in  the  Syn- 
optical record,  (h)  That  if  John  wrote  the  Fourth  Gosjiel  he  must  have  reproduced  the 
discourses  of  his  Master  with  substantial  correctness  ;  for  if  he  can  be  supposed  to  have 
changed,  either  consciously  or  unconsciously,  the  style  or  substance  of  Christ's  teaching, 
he  may  have  been  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  though  it  does  not  represent  cor- 
rectly the  words  of  Jesus.  ((■)  That  the  Synoptical  report  contains  ample  specimens  of 
every  kind  of  discourse  which  the  Lord  ever  employed  ;  for  if  it  does  not,  the  report  of 
the  Fourth  Evangelist  may  furnish  a  variety  of  teaching  not  distinctly  represented  in  the 
first  three  Gospels. 

To  the  first  of  these  assumptions,  that  the  Synoptical  Gospels  furnish  a  trustworthy 
report  of  Christ's  teaching,  no  valid  objection  can  be  made.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  certainly 
did  teach,  much  of  the  time,  after  the  manner  represented  by  the  first  three  Gospels. 
To  deny  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  numerous  parables,  and  the  discourse  about 
the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem -and  the  final  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  as  read  in  those 
Gospels,  preserve  faithfully  certain  parts  of  the  Lord's  teaching,  would  be  to  disregard 
the  rules  of  historical  evidence.  Again,  much  may  be  said  in  support  of  the  second  as- 
sumption, that  if  John  wrote  the  Fourth  Gospel  he  must  be  presumed  to  have  reported 
the  discourses  of  his  Master  with  substantial  accuracy.  For  the  circumstance  that  he 
had  been  a  disciple  of  Jesus  and  a  hearer  of  many  or  all  of  the  discourses  reported  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  must  be  regarded  as  favorable  to  the  general  accuracy  of  that  report.  It 
would  be  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  Christ's  language  and  teaching  had  made  so  little 
impression  on  the  soul  of  John  that  he  could  ascribe  to  him  thoughts  which  he  never 
uttered,  and  a  style  of  teaching  which  he  never  emplojed.  If  then  the  third  assumption 
were  certainly  correct,  if  it  were  a  case  made  out  by  just  criticism  that  the  discourses  of 
Jesus  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels  furnish  ample  specimens  of  every  kind  of  discourse  em- 
])loyed  by  him,  so  that  it  is  safe  to  affirm  that  those  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Fourth 
(xospel  were  never  uttered  by  him,  it  would  undoubtedly  be  easier  to  believe  that  the 
latter  were  composed  by  some  person  not  a  hearer  of  Christ,  than  to  believe  them  com- 
posed by  John,   who  heard  him  so  often. 

But  to  this  final  assumption  there  are  grave  objections.  For  it  is  worthy  of  remark, 
in  the  Jir^t  place,  that  the  Synoptical  Gospels  nowhere  pretend  to  furnish  a  complete 
record  of  Christ's  teaching.  Indeed,  nothing  is  more  evident  from  the  Gospels  them- 
selves than  the  fact  that  they  contain  only  a  small  part  of  what  he  said  (see  Matt.  4  :  23  ; 
9:  35;  11  :  1).  The  passages  referred  to  are  but  samples  of  the  Lord's  preaching,  a 
great  part  of  which  the  Evangelists  do  not  profess  to  record.  It  would  probably  be  safe 
to  affirm  that  not  more  than  one  discourse  out  of  fifty  which  he  delivered  during  the 
years  of  his  public  ministry  is  preser%ed  by  the  Synoptists.     This  rough  estimate,  how- 


INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL.  35 


ever,  includes  frequent  repetitions  of  the  same  essential  truth  to  different  persons  in 
nearly  the  same  terms,  and  to  the  same  persons  in  different  terms.  Fur  why  should  not 
the  same  truth  be  repeated  to  different  persons  in  nearly  the  same  terms,  and  to  the 
same  persons  in  varied  forms  of  speech  ?  Is  not  this  done  more  or  less  by  every  great 
teacher  ? 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  in  the  second  place,  that  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  Synoptical 
Gospels  that  they  were  meant  to  furnish  illustrative  specimens  of  every  kind  or  style  of 
discourse  which  the  Saviour  employed.  The  authors  do  not  appear  to  have  been  guided 
in  their  selection  of  materials  by  any  such  purpose.  If  an  inference  may  be  drawn  from 
the  prevailing  character  of  their  narratives,  it  would  be  that  they  inserted  some  of  the 
most  striking  parts  of  certain  discourses  which  were  addressed  to  the  people  of  Galilee 
during  the  Lord's  ministry  there,  together  with  a  few  of  his  impressive  utterances  in 
Jerusalem  shortly  before  his  death,  ^\^lether  they  made  use  of  an  earlier  record  which 
has  since  perished,  or  rather  put  in  writing  each  for  himself  such  special  portions  of 
the  Saviour's  teaching  as  were  most  frequently  repeated  by  the  apostles,  may  always  be 
a  matter  of  doubt,  but  certainly  there  is  in  their  writings  no  trace  of  a  plan  to  give  a 
complete  picture  of  the  diversified  work  of  Christ  as  a  teacher  of  truth.  And,  apart 
from  such  a  plan,  what  sufficient  reason  is  there  for  thinking  that  the  Synoptical  Gospels 
furnish  examples  of  every  kind  of  discourse  employed  by  Jesus?  Is  it  safe  for  us  to 
decide  that  One  who  delivered  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  parables  of  Matthew  and  of 
Luke,  the  warnings  and  predictions  of  the  last  passover  week,  the  answers  which  silenced 
by  their  sagacity  Pharisee  and  Sadducee  and  lawyer,  and  indeed  the  right  word  to  every 
man  whom  he  met,  was  nevertheless  restricted  to  just  those  ranges  of  thought  and  styles 
of  expression  which  may  be  found  illustrated  in  the  first  three  Gospels  ?  May  it  not 
rather  be  assumed  that  the  truly  marvelous  insight  and  sympathy  of  Jesus  were  com- 
plemented by  an  equallj'  marvelous  power  of  adapting  his  thought  and  style  to  the  minds 
before  him  ?  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  his  great  nature,  which  represented 
mankind  rather  than  any  one  type  of  liumaiuty,  was  able  to  express  itself  in  manifold 
ways,  some  adapted  to  deep  and  mystical  souls,  and  others  to  sharp  and  practical  intel- 
lects, some  to  men  of  spiritual  vision  and  fervor,  and  others  to  punctilious  observers  of 
law  and  precedent?    This  is  surely  a  credible  hypothesis. 

Furthermore,  it  is  admitted  by  competent  critics  that  the  language  and  thought  of 
Jesus  in  Matthew  11  :  25-30,  are  strikingly  similar  to  his  discourses  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
But  is,  any  scholar  justified  in  pronouncing  that  paragraph  unliistorical,  because  it  differs 
thus  from  manj',  or  from  all  other  utterances  of  Christ  preserved  in  the  First  Gospel  ?  If 
not,  let  us  suppose  that  Matthew  had  ascribed  to  Jesus  a  dozen  such  paragraphs ;  would 
a  critic  then  have  had  any  better  ground  for  thinking  the  dozen  unhistorical  than  he  has 
for  thinking  the  one  to  be  so?  If  Jesus  could  have  spoken  on  one  occasion  after  the 
manner  reported  by  John,  as  Matthew  testifies,  who  can  prove  that  he  could  not  have 
spoken  thus  on  a  dozen  occasions?  Moreover,  if  a  Johannean  style  in  the  First  Gospel 
does  not  discredit  the  record,  why  should  it  do  this  in  the  Fourth  Gospel?  This  ques- 
tion can  be  answered  in  only  one  way. 

A  hundred  examples  might  be  adduced  to  show  the  remarkable  changes  of  thought 
and  style  in  different  addresses  of  the  same  man — changes  occasioned  sometimes  by  the 
moods  of  the  speaker,  sometimes  by  the  themes  discussed,  and  sometimes  by  the  moral 
conditions  of  those  addressed.  Let  a  reader  compare  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  with 
that  to  the  Ephesians  or  Colossians,  and  he  will  perceive  a  vast  difference  between  them. 
Or  let  him  compare  Paul's  discourse  to  the  Jews  in  their  synagogue   at  Antioch   of 


36  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL. 


Pisidia  (Acts  13  :  17-41),  with  his  discourse  to  the  men  of  Athens  on  Mars'  Hill  (Acts 
17  :  22-31),  or  with  his  address  to  the  Elders  of  Ephesus  in  Miletus  (Acts  20  :  18-35),  and 
lie  will  observe  such  differences  of  method  and  tone  as  will  make  it  seem  probable  that 
Jesus  spoke  sometimes  after  the  manner  represented  by  the  Synoptical  discourses,  and 
sometimes  after  the  manner  represented  by  the  discourses  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  For 
surely  in  this  matter  of  variety  and  adaptation,  it  would  be  inconsiderate  to  imagine  the 
servant  greater  than  his  Lord. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  the  difference  between  the  discourses  ascribed  to 
Jesus  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  those  ascribed  to  him  in  the  first  three,  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  a  Johannean  authorship  of  the  former.  "But  even  the  Johannean  author- 
ship of  the  record  of  Christ's  discourses  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  does  not,  it  has  been 
further  said,  prove  them  to  be  substantially  correct,  much  less  does  it  prove  them  to  be 
strictly  accurate.  For  sixty  years  may  have  elapsed  between  the  time  when  they  were 
spoken,  and  the  time  when  they  were  put  in  writing,  and  the  memory  of  one  man  can 
hardly  be  trusted  to  bear  the  words  of  another  over  so  vast  a  period.  Is  it  not  extremely 
probable  that  John,  revolving  in  his  mind  through  the  years  of  a  long  life  the  teaching  of 
his  Master,  had,  unconsciously  to  himself,  changed  more  or  less  the  substance  and  form 
of  that  teaching  ?  Is  it  not  almost  certain  that  he  had  recast  and  remoulded  in  the 
laboratory  of  his  own  great  spirit  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  adding  to  it  much  that  was 
foreign  to  the  original  discourses,  and  imi>ressing  upon  it  everywhere  the  stamp  of  his 
own  genius?  And  is  not  this  the  true  and  sufficient  explanation  of  the  difference  in 
style  and  thought  between  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  first  three?"  Thus  we  come  to 
the  second  question  to  be  answered  in  this  part  of  our  introduction,  viz. :  Is  the  differ- 
ence referred  to  so  great,  or  of  such  a  nature  as  to  disprove  the  substantial  correctness 
of  John's  record  of  his  Master's  teaching? 

The  first  reason  for  answering  this  question  in  the  negative  has  already  been  noticed. 
It  is  the  marked  resemblance  of  the  words  of  Christ  in  jMatt.  11 :  25-30  to  his  teach- 
ing in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  would  surely  be  rash  to  deny  that  One  who  delivered  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  the  last  paragraph  of  the  First  Gospel,  could  have  uttered 
the  sublime  words:  "I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou 
didst  hide  these  things  from  the  wise  and  understanding,  and  didst  reveal  them  unto 
babes  :  Yea,  Father,  for  so  it  was  well-pleasing  in  thy  sight.  All  things  have  been  de- 
livered unto  me  of  my  Father  :  and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  saA'e  the  Father ;  neither 
doth  any  know  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal 
him.  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest : 
Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me  ;  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart :  and  ye 
shall  find  rest  to  your  souls  :  For  my  yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden  is  light  "  (Rev.  Ver.). 
But  it  would  be  no  less  rash  to  deny  that  One  who  uttered  the  words  just  cited  could 
have  spoken  as  follows  :  "I  am  the  good  Shepherd  ;  and  I  know  my  own,  and  mine  own 
know  me,  even  as  the  Father  knoweth  me,  and  I  know  the  Father ;  and  I  lay  down  my 
life  for  the  sheep.  And  other  sheep  I  have  which  are  not  of  this  fold  :  Them  also  I 
must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  m}'  voice  ;  and  there  shall  be  one  flock,  one  shepherd. 
Therefore  doth  the  Father  love  me,  because  I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I  may  take  it 
again.  No  one  taketh  it  away  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself  I  have  power 
to  lay  it  down,  and  T  have  power  to  take  it  again.  This  commandment  received  I  from 
my  Father  "  (Rev.  Ver.).  The  same  authority,  dignity,  simplicity,  and  sweetness  per- 
vade the  two  paragraphs.  Are  we  not  then  warranted  in  saying  that  Jesus  sometimes 
spoke  after  the  manner  represented  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  ?    And  it  he  spoke  thus  on  a 


INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL.  37 


few  occasions,  it  seems  difficult  to  assign  any  conclusive  reason  why  he  may  not  have 
spoken  thus  as  often  as  John  affirms. 

A  second  reason  for  answering  the  question  before  us  in  the  negative  is  that  John,  as 
well  as  the  other  apostles,  was  assisted  in  liis  work  of  teaching  the  truth  by  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Unless  we  approach  the  Fourth  Gospel  with  unwarrantable 
suspicion,  refusing  to  allow  its  testimony  any  value,  it  will  be  impossible  fur  us  to  deny 
that  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  revealer  of  truth,  was  promised  by  the  Lord  himself  to  his  dis- 
ciples just  before  his  death.  And  if  we  admit  that  such  a  promise  was  given,  and  that 
it  began  to  be  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  there  will  be  no  reason  to  doubt  the 
specification,  distinctly  stated,  that  the  Spirit  of  truth  would  bring  to  their  remembrance 
all  that  Christ  had  said  unto  them  (14:  26).  The  Spirit  of  God  was  therefore  to  assist 
John,  by  what  process  we  need  not  inquire,  to  recall  the  words  and  deeds  of  his 
Master,  whenever  he  had  occasion  to  use  them  in  preaching  the  gospel  or  building  up 
the  churches.  Unless  this  extraordinary  assistance  of  the  Spirit  be  taken  into  account, 
the  whole  reason  for  our  confidence  in  the  record  of  John  is  not  grasped.  Nay,  this  is 
the  strongest  pillar  of  our  fliith  in  the  testimony  of  the  apostles.  They  are  to  be  be- 
lieved, not  only  because  there  is  abundant  evidence  of  their  intelligence  and  integrity,  as 
witnesses  to  the  works  and  words  of  Jesus,  but  also,  and  especially,  because  they  were 
illuminated  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  enabled  by  his  quickening  power  to  recall  the  say- 
ings of  their  Lord.  When  therefore  it  is  asked,  "Could  John  have  retained  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  in  his  memory  fifty  or  sixty  years  ?  "  it  may  be  answered  in  the  affirmative, 
(1)  because  the  Holy  Spirit  was,  in  a  very  special  sense,  his  Helper ;  and  (2)  because  he 
was  called  by  his  work  as  an  apostle  to  repeat  more  or  less  of  this  teaching  every  week,  if 
not  every  day,  dwelling  no  doubt  with  peculiar  satisfietion  upon  those  parts  of  it  which 
were  most  congenial  to  his  spirit  and  refreshing  to  his  faith. 

These  considerations  would  probably  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  almost  everj'  one  that  the 
diffisrence  in  style  and  thought  between  the  discourses  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  and  those  ascribed  to  him  in  the  first  three,  is  not  so  great  or  of  such  a  nature  as 
to  disprove  the  substantial  accuracy  of  John's  record,  were  it  not  for  a  single  circum- 
stance, viz.:  the  striking  resemblance  of  the  stj'le  of  the  other  parts  of  this  Gospel  to  tlie 
style  of  the  Saviour's  teaching  recorded  in  it.  In  other  words,  the  style  of  John  is  said  y 
to  be  identical  with  the  style  of  his  Master,  as  reported  by  him.  And  this  circumstance 
suggests  the  thought  that  John  has  not  given  us  the  teaching  of  Jesus  pure  and  simple, 
but  rather  some  of  that  teaching  recast  and  recolored  by  its  passage  through  his  own 
mind.  The  suggestion  is  a  natural  one,  but  there  is  danger  of  allowing  it  to  pass  for 
more  than  it  is  worth. 

For,  in  the  Jirst  place,  it  might  be  conceded  that  John  has  not  given  us  the  precise 
words  and  style  of  Jesus,  without  conceding  that  his  report  is  incorrect  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  what  Jesus  said.  Especially  easj^  would  it  be  to  justify  this  proposition  in  case 
of  a  report  which  is  also  a  translation .  And  this  is  probably  true  of  all  the  reports  of  our 
Lord's  discourses  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  if  not  of  all  that  are  found  in  the  Synoptical 
Gospels.  We  may  then  safely  believe  that  John's  report  of  his  Master's  teaching  is  no 
more  unlike  the  original  than  any  fiithful  and  fluent  version  is  apt  to  be.  John's  report 
must  be  looked  ujion  as  his  own  conscientious  rendering  of  what  he  had  heard  the  Master 
say  ;  for  these  discourses  do  not  appear  in  the  earlier  Gospels  and  are  not  supj)osed  to 
have  been  among  the  "  common  places"  of  apostolic  preaching.  But  if  the.v  are  trans- 
lations made  by  John  himself  from  the  Aramaean  into  the  Greek  language,  the  tran.slator 
may  have  put  the  impress  of  his  own  style  upon  them,  though  the  sentiments  of  Jesus 


38  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

are  correctly  reported.  There  is  a  plain  difference  of  style  between  Pope's  translation  of 
the  Iliad  and  Oowper's,  even  in  passages  where  the  Homeric  thought  is  fairly  reproduced 
by  both.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Prof.  Torrey's  translation  of  Neander's  "History  of 
the  Christian  Religion  and  Church,"  when  compared  with  any  other  translation  that  I 
have  seen.  Many  years  ago  the  writer  of  this  Introduction  was  associated  with  a  friend 
in  translating  Perthes'  "Life  of  Chrysostom."  The  first  half  of  the  volume  was  trans- 
lated by  the  writer,  and  the  second  half  by  his  friend  ;  and  the  former  did  not  feel  him- 
self flattered  by  observing  that  the  second  part  was  said  by  competent  critics  to  "be  done 
into  better  English  than  the  first,  though  the  sense  of  the  original  appeared  to  be  repro- 
duced with  equal  fidelity  in  both."  From  such  instances  it  appears  that  a  translation 
may  closely  resemble  the  translator's  style  and  yet  be  faithful  to  the  meaning  of  the 
original.  Hence,  if  it  were  certain  that  John  had  given  his  own  style  to  his  Master's 
discourses,  it  would  not  follow  tliat  any  part  of  the  tliought,  or  any  i>articular  illustration, 
ascribed  to  Jesus,  was  contributed  by  John  ;  it  would  not  follow  that  we  have  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  an  unreliable  report  of  the  Lord's  teaching.  It  might  in  fact  be  just  as' 
reliable  as  any  of  the  "common  places"  preserved  in  the  other  Gospels  ;  for  they  too 
must  be  regarded  as  versions  of  the  more  popular  and  striking  paits  of  his  teaching. 

In  the  secoml  place,  the  memory  of  John  appears  to  have  been  singularly  tenacious. 
As  we  have  already  seen,  his  narrative  is  remarkable  for  its  accuracy  in  the  represen- 
tation of  accompanying  circumstances.  Times  and  events  were  so  deeply  engraved  on 
his  memory  that  years  could  not  erase  them.  There  is  no  one  of  the  Evangelists,  not 
even  Mark  (virtually  Peter),  for  whom  events  and  the  occasions  of  them  had  a  pro- 
founder  significance,  no  one  who  saw  in  them  more  clearly  the  purpose  and  hand  of 
God.  Plainly  then  he  must  have  pondered  these  things  in  his  heart,  as  he  did  the 
words  of  his  Master.  Yet  they  do  not  seem  to  have  been  transfigured  by  the  action  of 
his  imagination.  They  retained  their  simple  and  real  character,  although  subject,  for 
more  than  half  a  century,  to  the  influence  of  his  brooding  meditation.  This  fact  de- 
serves consideration.  For  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  John  gave  more  earnest  heed,  in 
the  first  in.stance,  to  any  thing  else  than  he  gave  to  the  loords  of  Jesus.  And,  other 
things  being  equal,  it  is  a  law  of  the  mind,  that  the  closer  the  attention  in  the  first 
instance,  the  better  the  memory  ever  after.  If  then  his  memory  of  events,  occasions, 
and  circumstances  was  singularly  exact,  there  is  much  reason  to  suppose  that  it  was 
equally  clear  and  firm  in  its  hold  on  the  teaching  which  fell  from  the  lips  of  his  gracious 
Lord,  and  which  must  have  made  a  deep  impression  on  his  mind.  And  if  his  brood- 
ing over  events,  and  his  growing  apprehension  of  their  meaning,  did  not  change  his 
view  of  them  as  objective  realities,  it  would  be  somewhat  surprising  to  find  that  his 
meditation  on  the  words  of  Christ,  and  his  growing  insight  into  their  meaning,  uncon- 
sciously modified  his  recollection  of  those  words  as  objective  realities.  Nor  is  this  remaik 
at  all  aff"ected  by  the  view  we  entertain  of  the  help  afforded  by  inspiration  to  the  apostle. 
Whatever  may  be  the  true  explanation  of  his  vigorous  memorj',  it  is  very  certain  that  he 
possessed  it,  so  far  as  scenes  and  events  are  concerned,  and  therefore  probable  that  he 
possessed  it,  so  far  as  the  teaching  of  his  Lord  is  concerned.  And  this  raises  a  certain 
presumption  against  the  theory  proposed,  and  moves  us  to  ask  whether  the  phenomenon 
in  question  can  be  accounted  for  in  any  other  way. 

J  Is  it  then  too  much  to  assume,  (1)  that,  beyond  any  other  disciple  of  Jesus,  John  had 
a  profoundly  loving  and  spiritual  nature,  and  that  by  reason  of  such  a  nature  he  was 
peculiarly  susceptible  to  the  influence  of  his  Lord's  words  when  they  related  to  the  Lord's 
person,  or  to  the  higher  and  mystical  aspects  of  Christian  truth  ?     (2)  That  this  extra- 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE   GOSPEL.  39 

ordinary  susceptibility  to  the  sayings  and  sermons  of  Jesus  which  related  to  the  Saviour's 
own  person,  or  to  the  more  vital  and  spiritual  aspects  of  religion,  led  him  to  recall  such 
sayings  and  sermons  with  peculiar  interest,  to  meditate  upon  them  with  intense  satis- 
faction, to  use  them  frequently  in  his  preaching,  and  thus  to  keep  them  ever  fresh  and 
distinct  in  his  memory?  And  (3)  that  all  this  tended  to  bring  the  loving  disciple's  style 
of  thought  and  of  expression  into  closer  and  closer  accord  with  a  certain  part  of  his 
Master's  teaching,  so  that  in  foct  his  language  was  unconsciously  modeled  after  that  part 
of  Christ's  language  which  was  dearest  to  his  heart  and  oftenest  on  his  tongue? 

In  favor  of  these  assumptions  is  the  fact  that  they  recognize  in  the  Founder  of  our 
religion  One  greater  than  any  or  all  of  his  disciples.  They  represent  his  spiritual  being  as 
large  enough,  many-sided  enough,  to  match  and  move  and  inspire  the  capacities  of  every 
man  with  whom  he  had  to  do.  Yet  they  are  also  consistent  with  the  view  that  each  one 
of  his  twelve  disciples  had  some  eminent  qualification  for  the  work  of  an  apostle,^  some 
single  faculty  lifting  him  above  the  dead  level  of  mediocrity  and  giving  promise  of  valua- 
ble service  in  a  certain  direction,  but  they  insist  that  no  one  of  them  equaled  his  Master, 
even  in  the  faculty  which  had  led  to  his  selection  as  an  apostle.  And  this  estimate  of 
Jesus  agrees  with  his  definite  claims  to  pre-eminence  in  knowledge  and  authority,  with 
his  disciples'  recognition  of  those  claims  and  life-long  devotion  to  his  service,  and  with 
the  place  which  many  modern  scholars  give  to  his  person  and  influence. 

Especially  does  this  estimate  accord  with  the  tone  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  in  speaking  of 
Jesus.  If  John,  as  we  have  shown,  was  the  writer  of  that  Gospel,  he  certainly  believed 
that  Jesus  had  unparalleled  knowledge  of  God  and  man,  and  also  that,  by  union  with 
Jesus,  he  himself  had  come  into  possession  of  new  spiritual  truth  and  life.  Notice  the 
following  expressions  :  "  But  Jesus  did  not  trust  himself  unto  them,  for  that  he  knew  all 
men,  and  because  he  needed  not  that  any  one  should  bear  witness  concerning  man  ;  fjr 
he  himself  knew  what  was  in  man  "  (John  2  :  24,  25.  Rev.  Ver).  "  Of  his  fulness  we  all 
received,  and  grace  for  grace.  For  the  law  was  given  by  Moses  :  grace  and  truth  came 
by  Jesus  Christ  "  (1  :  16,  17.  Rev.  Ver).  "  Many  other  signs  therefore  did  Jesus  in  the 
presence  of  the  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this  book  :  but  these  are  written,  that 
ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  that  believing  ye  may  have 
life  in  his  name  "  (20:  30,  31.  Rev.  Ver).  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  author  of  such 
testimonies  looked  up  to  Jesus  with  reverence  as  well  as  love,  counting  him  ^Master  even 
though  he  were  also  Friend,  and  prizing  his  words  as  a  leg^.cy  no  less  precious  and  divine 
than  his  works.  How  susceptible,  impressible,  plastic,  his  soul  was  to  the  influence  of 
Christ  may  be  partly  inferred  from  his  writings  ;  and  in  view  of  their  tone  and  testi- 
mony it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  his  habits  of  thinking  and  speaking  must  have  been 
greatly  influenced  by  those  of  his  Lord,  but  especially  by  the  discourses  of  Jesus  that 
satisfied  the  deepest  tendencies  of  his  own  spirit.  These  it  is,  that  he  has  preserved  in 
his  Gospel.  For  the  time  came,  in  the  history  and  ferment  of  Christian  inqulrj-,  when 
the  churches  were  in  need  of  that  part  of  the  Lord's  instruction  which  had  been  wel- 
comed with  the  greatest  satisfaction  by  the  soul  of  John,  and  which  could  be  put  on 
record  in  the  best  manner  by  him.  He  therefore,  in  obedience  to  the  call  of  Providence, 
wrote  his  Gospel  and  gave  it  to  the  churches. 

But  though  it  is  in  itself  credible,  and  indeed  probable,  that  John's  style  was  greatly 
influenced  by  that  part   of  his  Master's  teaching  which  was  peculiarlj'  adapted  to  his 

1  Save  Judas  Iscariot,  who  appears  to  have  had  no  moral  qualification  for  the  apostleship.  But  it  was 
known  to  Jesus  from  the  beginning  that  this  unworthy  disei]>le  would  at  last  hetruy  hiui  to  his  foes  (see 
Notes  on  6:  64,70,  71;  13:  11,  IS)  and  then  perish,  before  entering  upon  the  proper  work  of  an  apostle. 


40  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

spiritual  nature,  tliis  explanation  of  the  resemblance  between  his  style  and  that  of  Jesus 
in  the  discourses  recorded  by  him,  cannot  be  accepted  unless  satisfactory  answers  can  be 
given  to  the  following  questions,  viz.  :  (1)  Is  there  any  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
discourses  reported  by  John  were  identical  with  discourses  reported  in  other  language  by 
the  Synoptists?  For  if  there  were  reason  to  suppose  this,  the  probability  that  John's 
record  has  been  colored  by  his  own  thought  and  style,  rather  than  his  style  derived  from 
that  of  Christ,  would  be  very  strong,  and  the  explanation  proposed  would  deserve  little 
favor.  But  the  question  may  be  confidently  answered  in  the  negative,  leaving  the 
explanation  undisturbed.  (2)  Do  the  persons  addressed  in  the  discourses  of  John's 
Gospel  furnish  any  argument  against  this  explanation  ?  The  answer  to  this  question 
should  be  carefully  made.  For  if  the  persons  addressed  in  the  discourses  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  were  the  same,  and  in  the  same  mental  condition,  as  those  addressed  by  the 
discourses  of  the  other  Gospels,  the  change  of  style  would  be  surprising  and  an 
argument  against  the  theory ;  but  if  they  were  different,  there  may  be  no  argument 
from  this  source  against  the  theory,  inasmuch  as  difference  of  hearers  might  account 
for  difference  of  manner  in  addressing  them.  Now  it  will  be  found,  upon  close  examina- 
tion, that  the  words  of  Jesus  reported  by  John  were,  most  of  them  at  least,  addressed 
to  hearers  who  differed  in  important  respects  from  those  to  whom  his  words  in  the  first 
three  Gospels  were  addressed.  Let  the  record  of  John  be  read  with  an  eye  to  this 
difference  as  accounting  tor  its  character. 

This  record  first  gives  the  words  of  Jesus  to  Andrew  and  John,  as  they  were  follow- 
ing him,  viz.  :  What  seek  yef  and  next,  his  response  to  their  question  :  "Rabbi,  where 
abidest  thou?"  Come,  and  i/e  shall  see.  Then  follow  in  rapid  succession  his  saying  to 
Peter:  Thou  art  Simoii,  the  son  of  John ;  thon  shalt  }>c  called  Peter ;  his  commendation 
of  Nathanael :  Behold  an  Israelite  indeed,  in  ivhom  there  is  no  guile;  his  answer  to 
Nathanaels  question  :  "Whence  knowest  thou  me?"  Before  Philip  called  thee,  ivhen 
thou  least  tinder  the  fiff-tree,  I  saw  thee;  and  his  response  to  Nathanael' s  confession 
of  him  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  King  of  Israel :  Because  I  said  unto  thee,  I  saw  thee 
■under  the  fij -tree,  helievest  t'ou?  Thou  shalt  see  greater  things  than  these.  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Ye  shall  see  the  hea  en  opened,  and  the  angeh  of  God  ascending 
and  desicending  on  the  Son  of  Man.  Only  this  last  verse  can  be  called  Johannean,  and 
this  does  not  differ  in  tone  or  spirit  from  Christ's  response  to  a  similar  confession  of 
Peter,  as  recorded  by  Matthew  (16:  16-19).  In  both  instances  it  was  called  forth  by 
the  spiritual  attitude  of  the  person  addressed. 

Three  brief  remarks  of  Jesus  at  the  marriage  in  Cana  of  Galilee  are  preserved  by 
John  ;  one  to  his  mother :  Woman,  what  have  I  to  do  loith  thee  f  Mine  hour  is  not 
yet  come;  and  two  to  the  servants :  Fill  the  icater-pots  with  water,  and,  Draw  out  now, 
and  hear  unto  the  •  nler  of  the  feast.  But  none  of  these  reniarks  would  strike  a  reader 
as  peculiar  if  found  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  In  John's  account  of  Christ's  purifj'ing 
the  Temple,  the  only  sayings  attributed  to  Jesus  are  two,  viz.  :  TaJce.  these  things  hence  ; 
make  not  my  Fathers  house  a  house  of  merchandise ;  and.  Destroy  thi  Temple,  and  in- 
three  days  1  xcill  rawe  it  up ;  both  of  which  find  support  as  to  fact  and  style  in  the  other 
Gospels.  (See  Matt.  21:  13;  Mark  14:  58).  And  it  is  noticeable  that  when  John,  aa 
in  these  instances,  gives  any  sayings  of  Christ  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  earlier 
Gospels,  the  character  of  his  report  agrees  with  their  reference. 

Passing  on  to  the  third  chapter,  and  the  Lord's  conversation  with  Nieodemus,  we 
meet  for  the  first  time  with  a  type  of  thought  and  expression  rarely  appearing  in  the 
Synoptical  Gospels.     But  it  is  also  true  that  the  person  addressed  differs  from  any  one 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  41 

addressed  by  Jesus  in  the  discourses  of  the  first  three  Gospels.  Fur  Nicodeiiius  was 
"  a  ruler  of  the  Jews,"  that  is,  probablj',  a  ineiuber  of  the  Sanhedrin  (7  :  50).  He  was 
also  called  by  Jesus  in  this  conversation,  if  it  is  correctly  reported,  the  teacher  of  hrael 
(Rev.  Ver.),  meaning  at  least  one  who  belonged  to  the  learned  class  in  the  Council,  an 
expounder  of  the  law.  Besides,  and  this  is  a  chief  point,  he  was  evidently  a  thouglitfa: 
man,  fully  persuaded  by  miracles  or  "signs"  wrought  in  Jerusalem,  that  Jesus  was  "a 
teacher  come  from  God,"  and  half-convinced,  it  is  probable,  that  he  was  the  expected 
Messiah.  Well  might  the  Lord,  in  a  quiet,  confidential  interview,  turn  the  eye  of  such 
an  inquirer  to  the  necessity  of  a  radical  inward  change,  of  liis  entering  upon  a  new 
spiritual  life,  as  indispensable  to  real  discipleship.  This  was  clearly  the  one  thing  tliat 
Nicodemus  needed  to  know,  and  there  is  no  solid  ground  for  doubting  that  he  w;is  in  a 
state  of  mind  to  profit  by  it  more  than  he  would  have  profited  by  any  other  teaching. 
Still  further,  if  the  words  of  Jesus  close  witli  the  fifteenth  verse,  it  is  worthy  of  remark, 
that  they  abound  in  figurative  language.  The  spirit  of  parables  is  in  them.  Thus  we 
have  the  figure  of  a  new  birth  as  expressive  of  the  moral  change  experienced  by  those 
who  enter  truly  upon  the  service  of  Christ,  the  figure  of  the  wind  moving  unseen  as  an 
emblem  of  the  Holy  Spirit  renewing  the  hearts  of  men,  and  the  figure  of  the  brazen  ser- 
pent lifted  up  in  the  wilderness  as  a  symbol  of  the  Lord  himself  to  be  lifted  up  as  an 
object  of  saving  faith.  To  say  that  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels  could  not  have 
conversed  in  this  manner  with  such  a  man,  would  be  to  speak  unadvisedly. 

But  it  may  perhaps  be  asserted  that  John  meant  to  ascribe  the  six  following  verses 
also  to  Jesus,  that  these  verses  contain  a  much  smaller  proportion  of  figurative  lan- 
guage than  was  generally  used  by  him,  and  that  they  seem  to  be  an  explanation,  repe- 
tition, and  expansion  of  thoughts  already  expressed.  From  these  considerations  it  is 
inferred  that  John  has  here  put  his  own  words  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  On  the  other 
hand  it  may  be  said  that  exi)lanation,  iteration,  expansion,  are  more  or  less  characteristic 
of  every  wise  teacher,  especially  in  the  freedom  of  conversation ;  and,  further,  that  the 
expansion  of  these  verses  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  the  germinal  thoughts  previously 
uttered.  There  is,  then,  no  conclusive  evidence  that  these  verses  could  not  have  been 
spoken  by  Jesus  ;  yet  it  is  equally  true  that  there  is  no  conclusive  evidence  of  John's  in- 
tention to  ascribe  them  to  Jesus.  Only  this  may  be  strongly  afiirmed,  that  the  difference 
between  Christ's  style  and  thought  in  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  and  his  style  and 
thought  in  many  discourses  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  may  be  accounted  for  without 
ascribing  it  to  John  the  Evangelist.  It  is  sufficiently  explained  as  a  result  of  adapting 
truth  to  the  mind  of  the  hearer. 

The  next  passage  to  be  noticed  is  Christ's  conversation  with  a  Samaritan  woman  at 
Jacob's  well.  Of  this  conversation  it  may  be  remarked  that  it  was  held  with  one  person 
only,  that  her  spiritual  condition  was  evidently  divined  by  the  Lord,  that  apt  and  free 
use  was  made  of  illustration,  and  that  the  truth  graduall}'^  imparted  appears  to  have  been 
suited  to  the  woman's  spiritual  state.  To  be  sure,  our  knowledge  of  this  woman  is  re- 
stricted to  what  may  be  learned  from  the  narrative  in  question.  But  this  at  least  may 
be  inferred  from  it,  that  she  was  neither  stupid  nor  thoughtless.  She  had  a  bright  intel- 
lect, a  ready  wit,  and  a  conscience  still  alive.  Indeed,  she  was  better  prepared  to  receive 
the  truth  than  were  many  of  the  Jews ;  and,  perceiving  this,  the  great  Teacher  gave 
himself  earnestly  and  skillfully  to  the  task  of  infusing  it  into  her  soul.  The  first  hint  of 
his  religious  mission  was  given  in  the  words, -i/"  thou  hiewest  the  gift  of  God,  and  who  it 
if  that  saith  unto  thee,  Give  me  to  drink ;  thou  icoiddeat  have  asked  of  him,  and  he  icouhl 
have  given,  thee  living  water.     And  the  next  was  similar,  continuing  the  same  metaphor: 


42  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

Every  one  that  drinlceth  of  this  water  shall  thirst  again :  but  whosoever  drinketh  of  the 
water  that  I  shall  give  him  shall  never  thirst;  hut  the  icater  that  I  shall  give  him  shall  he- 
come  in  him  a.  icell  of  neater  springing  np  unto  eternal  life  (Rev.  Ver.).  This  use  of 
imagery  taken  from  objects  at  hand  and  familiar,  is  characteristic  of  the  Christ  of  the 
Synoptists.  Consider  the  lilies  of  the  field,  how  they  grow ;  they  toil  not,  neither  do  they 
spin  :  yet  I  say  unto  you,  that  even  Solomon  in  all  his  glory  ivas  not  arrayed  like  one  of 
these.  But  if  God  doth  so  clothe  the  grass  of  the  field,  which  to-day  is,  and  to-morroio  is 
cast  into  the  oven,  shall  he  not  much  more  clothe  you,  0  ye  of  little  faith  ?  (comp.  Luke  10  : 
41,  42,  and  14  :  7-24;  Matt.  7  :  28-30.  Lev.  Ver.).  Is  there  not  the  same  divine  skill 
and  insight  revealed  in  both  passages?  The  same  matchless  use  of  natural  objects  in 
conveying  religious  truth  ?  Do  the  writings  of  John,  any  more  than  those  of  Matthew, 
prove  that  he,  the  disciple,  could  have  put  such  teaching  into  his  Master's  lips?  Jesus 
now  approaches  the  woman's  conscience.  Go,  call  thy  hushand,  and  come  hither;  and,  in 
answer  to  her  evasive  reply,  says,  Thou  saidM  well,  I  have  no  hushand:  for  tJiou  hast  had 
five  Jiushands ;  and  he  ichom  thou  now  hast  is  not  thy  hushand  (Lev.  Ver.).  The  woman, 
perceiving  from  this  reply  that  he  was  a  prophet,  introduces  the  mooted  question  as  to 
the  proper  place  of  worship,  and  he  responds  :  Woman,  believe  me,  the  hour  cometh,  when 
neither  in  this  mountain  nor  in  Jerusalem  shall  ye  ivorship  the  Father.  Ye  worship  that 
wliich  ye  hnoui  not :  we  worship  that  ichich  we  know  :  for  .talvation  is  from  the  Jews.  But 
the  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the  worshippers  sh(dl  worship  the  lather  in  sjjirit  and 
trutli :  for  such  doth  the  Father  seek  to  he  his  worshipjyers.  God  is  a  spirit :  and  tliey  that 
worship  him  muM  worship  in  spirit  and  truth  (Lev.  Ver.).  Thereupon  the  woman  ex- 
pressed her  belief  that  the  coming  3Iessiah  would  explain  and  settle  all  things  now  in 
debate  between  the  Jews  and  Samaritans,  and  Jesus  saith  unto  her  plainly  :  I  that  speak 
unto  thee,  am  he.  Can  any  one  affirm  that  a  word  of  this  is  far-fetched  or  improbable  ? 
That  wliat  Christ  is  here  reported  to  have  said  was  any  less  fitting  than  what  he  said, 
according  to  Luke,  in  his  own  village  Nazareth,  To-day  hath  this  Scripture  been  fulfilled 
in  your  ears  f  Or  what  he  said  at  the  ruler's  table,  according  to  Luke  14  :  7-24?  Plainly, 
the  woman  was  better  prepared  to  hear  his  final  word  than  were  his  neighbors  in  Galilee 
to  hear  what  he  said  to  them.  She  was  a  part  of  the  field  which  he  looked  upon  as 
white  already  for  the  harve.'<t,  while  the  people  of  Nazareth  promptly  rejected  him  when 
he  spoke  of  mercy  for  the  Gentiles,  though  a  moment  before  they  had  wondered  at  the 
words  of  grace  which  fell  from  his  lips.  The  Samaritans  were  better  prepared  to  hear 
spiritual  truth  than  most  of  the  Jews,  and  it  is  quite  probable  that  no  one  of  them  was 
more  conscious  of  needing  divine  grace,  and  so  in  a  more  suitable  moral  condition  to  weL 
come  such  truth,  than  the  woman  whom  Christ  met  at  the  well.  On  the  whole,  there- 
fore, this  conversation  bears  internal  evidence  of  being  trul}'  reported.  It  is  Christ- like, 
rather  than  Johannean. 

And  the  same  is  equally  true  of  the  language  which  he  is  said  to  have  employed  in 
speaking  to  his  disciples  on  their  return  from  the  city.  There  is  nothing  Hke  it  in 
the  known  writings  of  John,  so  figurative  and  j'et  so  condensed.  My  meat  is  to  do  the 
will  of  him  that  sent  me,  and  to  accomplish  his  ivork.  Say  not  ye,  Tliere  are  yet  four 
montlis,  and  then  cometh  the  harvctt  f  behold,  I  say  unto  you :  Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look 
on  the  fields,  that  they  are  white  already  unto  harvest.  He  that  reapeth  receiveth  wages, 
and  gathereth  fruit  unto  life  eternal;  that  he  that  soiceth  and  he  that  reapeth  may  rejoice 
together.  For  herein  is  the  saying  true.  One  soweth  and  another  reapeth.  I  sent  you  to 
reap  that  whereon  ye  have  not  laboured;  others  have  lahound  and  ye  are  entered  into  their 
labour  (Lev.  Ver.).     Thus  speaks  the  Christ  of  John   to  his  disciples,  and  in  every 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  43 


sentence  we  seem  to  hear  the  faniihar  voice  of  the  Synoptical  Master.  In  no  sentence 
do  we  catch  the  faintest  echo  of  words  indubitablj'  original  with  the  author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel. 

Tip  to  this  point,  then,  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  to  suppose  that  the  record  of 
Christ's  teaching  found  in  this  Gospel  is  impaired  bj'  infusions  of  any  .sort  from  the 
writer's  theology  or  style.  And  the  writer's  correctness  thus  far  is  a  very  considerable 
aiigument  for  his  trustworthiness  in  the  remainder  of  his  work.  Two  other  sayings, 
addressed  to  the  nobleman  from  Capernaum,  whose  son  was  sick,  complete  the  record 
which  John  gives  of  the  Saviour's  words  during  the  first  and  tranquil  period  of  his 
ministry,  and  these  say  lugs— Except  ye  see  signs  and  ivonders,  ye  ic'dl  in  nowise  belieie, 
(Rev.  Ver.),  and.  Go  thy  way,  thy  son  liveth — are  manifestly  appropriate  to  the  Christ  of 
the  earlier  Gospels. 

In  the  same  manner  it  can  be  shown  that  all  the  sayings  ascribed  to  Jesus  by 
the  Evangelist  in  the  last  four  chapters  of  his  Gospel,  are  such  as  the  Christ  of  the 
Synoptists  may  be  supposed  to  have  uttered  in  perfect  consistency  with  the  style  of 
speech  attributed  to  him.  Let  the  reader  test  for  himself  the  correctness  of  this  state- 
ment by  carefully  reading  those  chapters.  With  equal  confidence  we  invite  him  to  apply 
the  same  statement  to  the  ninth  and  eleventh  chapters  of  this  Gospel,  which  contain  the 
remarkable  narratives  concerning  the  giving  of  sight  to  a  man  who  had  been  blind  from 
birth,  and  the  raising  of  Lazarus  after  he  had  been  dead  four  daj-s.  The  remaining 
chapters  (viz.:  the  5,  6,  7,  8,  10,  13-17),  contain  discourses  or  discussions  addressed  to 
influential  companies  of  Jews  who  denied  his  Messianic  authority  and  charged  him  with 
blasphemy,  or  to  his  chosen  disciples  on  the  evening  before  his  arrest.  Before  looking 
at  these  discourses,  it  may  be  well  to  study  for  a  moment  the  character  and  style  of 
John. 

The  notices  of  John  in  the  Four  Gospels  and  the  first  part  of  the  Acts  are  .scarcely 
sufficient  to  reveal  his  character  with  distinctness.  But  in  the  impression  which  they 
make  respecting  him,  thej'  agree  with  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  Epistles,  and  the  Book  of 
Revelation.  And  we  can  hardly  be  mistaken  in  saying,  with  Meyer,  that  love  was  the 
central  principle  of  his  I'enewed  nature,  and  his  fellowship  with  the  spirit  and  life  of 
Christ  most  true  and  deep  and  vital.  In  the  words  of  Plumptre  (Smith's  "Dictionary 
of  the  Bible")-.  "The  truest  thought  that  we  can  attain  to  is  still  that  he  was  'the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  '  (<>  en-KTTijJio?)  returning  that  love  with  a  deep,  absorbing, 
unwavering  devotion.  One  aspect  of  that  feeling  is  seen  in  the  zeal  for  his  Master's 
glory,  the  burning  indignation  against  all  that  seemed  to  outrage  it,  which  runs,  with  its 
fiery  gleam,  through  his  whole  life,  and  makes  him,  from  first  to  last,  one  of  the  sons  of 
thunder.  To  him,  more  than  to  any  other  disciple,  there  is  no  neutrality  between  Christ 
and  Antichrist.  The  spirit  of  such  a  man  is  intolerant  of  compromises  and  concessions. 
.  .  .  He  is  the  Apostle  of  Love,  not  because  he  starts  from  the  easy  temper  of  a 
general  benevolence,  nor  again  as  being  of  a  character  soft,  yielding,  feminine,  but 
because  he  has  grown,  ever  more  and  more,  into  the  likeness  of  him  whom  he  loved  so 
truly. ' ' 

But  where  shall  we  go  to  learn  the  style  of  John  ?  To  his  Gospel  alone  ?  Or  to  his 
Gospels  and  his  Epistles,  especially  the  first?  Or  to  all  these  together,  with  the  Book  of 
Revelation?  It  will  be  safe  to  Hmit  our  examination  to  his  First  Epistle  and  his 
Prologue  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  :  for  his  Second  and  Third  Epistles  are  very  short,  while 
the  narrative  parts  of  the  Gospel  and  much  of  the  Revelation  would  not  require  the 
same  style   as  discourses  would  naturally  take.     As  seen  in  the  Prologue  and   First 


44  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

Epistle,  the  literary  stj'le  of  John  is  uneommonl}'  simple.  Very  rarely  does  the  reader 
find  an  involved  sentence.  In  point  of  grammatical  accuracy,  these  portions  of  the  New 
Testament  are  superior  to  many  othei's.  But  in  the  structure  and  connection  of 
sentences,  there  is  almost  nothing  to  remind  one  of  classic  Greek  literature.  Looked 
at  from  this  point  of  view,  John's  style,  is  through  and  through  Hebraistic.  Every 
thing  is  cai?t  in  a  Hebrew  mould,  though  expressed  in  Greek  words.  In  this  respect  it  is 
impossible  to  perceive  any  difference  between  Matthew  and  Mark,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
John,  on  the  other,  or  betweeen  either  of  these  Evangelists  and  the  Lord  himself. 
Thu.s  John's  habit  of  presenting  the  same  truth,  after  the  manner  of  Hebrew  paral- 
lelism, in  both  a  positive  and  a  negative  form,  is  very  noticeable.  For  example  :  "All 
things  were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was  not  anything  made."  "God  is  light, 
and  in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all."  "  We  lie,  and  do  not  the  truth."  This  antithetic 
parallelism  is  a  most  obvious  and  pervasive  characteristic  of  the  style  of  John's  First 
Epistle  ;  but  it  is  less  prominent  in  the  prologue,  though  we  find  three  or  four  instances 
of  it  in  the  latter.  With  it  may  be  associated  his  habit  of  presenting  two  slightly 
different  aspects  of  the  inner  life  in  successive  clauses.  "Love  not  the  world,  neither 
the  things  that  are  in  the  world."  "Whosoever  sinneth  hath  not  seen  him,  neither 
known  him."  "  Whatsoever  is  begotten  of  God  overcometh  the  world  ;  and  this  is  the 
victory  that  hath  overcome  the  world,  even  our  faith  "  (Rev.  Ver.). 

Again,  with  a  certain  Hebraic  simplicitj'  of  style,  John  is  wont  to  express  an  idea  in 
its  absolute,  unqualified  form  :  "Whosoever  is  begotten  of  God  doeth  no  sin,  because 
his  seed  abideth  in  him:  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  begotten  of  God"  (Rev. 
Ver.).  "If  any  man  love  the  world,  the  love  of  the  Father  is  not  in  him."  Any 
qualification  of  such  a  statement  will  generally  be  found  in  some  other  passage  which, 
taken  by  itself,  is  equally  unqualified.  "  If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  wc  deceive 
ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us."  Such  a  stj-le  betokens  one  who  looks  at  the 
nature  of  things,  and  sees  the  perfect  whole  in  the  smallest  part — one  who  bears  witness 
of  what  he  perceives,  instead  of  appealing  to  argument  in  support  of  what  he  believes. 
To  him  truth  is  an  atmosphere  of  light,  vast,  limitless,  covering  the  whole  face  of  the 
sky,  rather  than  distinct  lines  of  light,  piercing  the  darkness  here  and  there.  More- 
over, the  light  is  golden,  full  of  heat  as  well  as  splendor. 

This  great,  yet  simple,  way  of  enunciating  truth  is,  however,  accompanied  by  a 
certain  uniformity  of  style  and  a  somewhat  persistent  repetition  of  the  same  thought. 
Every  sentence  is  deep,  intense,  powerful.  But  now  and  then  the  light  which  gleams 
from  the  apostle's  page  without  interrujition,  and  spreads  itself  over  a  boundless  skj^  of 
truth,  concentrates  its  energy  at  a  single  point  and  dazzles  the  soul  with  its  brightness. 
When  we  read  such  expressions  as  the  following  (in  Rev.  Ver.) :  "  He  that  doeth  sin  is 
of  the  devil;  for  the  devil  sinneth  from  the  beginning,"  "Every  spirit  which  con- 
fesseth  not  Jesus,  is  not  of  God,"  and  "  Who  is  a  liar  but  he  that  denieth  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ?  This  is  Antichrist,"  we  understand  whj^  this  disciple  was  surnamed  "son 
of  thunder."  (Comp.  John  8  :  47  ;  8  :  42  ;  8  :  44.)  Yet  the  style  of  John,  as  a  whole, 
gives  the  reader  a  sense  of  elevated  uniformity  as  one  of  its  prominent  characteristics. 
It  is  like  a  sunset  sky,  covered  with  golden  clouds  that  overlap  and  graduallj^  melt  into 
each  other.  It  reminds  one  of  a  "solemn  music,"  with  variations  of  the  same  theme, 
until  the  spirit  of  it  penetrates  the  whole  being  of  the  listener.  It  deals  with  a  few 
all-embracing  conceptions  in  almost  mystical  language,  but  with  simple  grandeur  of 
expression.  There  is  progress,  ascent,  but,  as  has  been  said,  b.v  a  kind  of  spiral  move- 
ment, which  brings  the  mind  round  to  the  same  view  again  and  again,  though  in  every 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  45 

instance  at  a  higher  point  of  observation.  Another  trait  of  John's  style  appears  in  the 
use  of  cardinal  ideas  and  words,  such  as  Life  and  Death,  Light  and  Darkness,  Truth  and 
Falsehood,  Love  and  Hatred,  Believing  and  Disbelieving,  llighteousness  and  Sin, 
Propitiation  and  Forgiveness,  the  World,  Antichrist,  etc.  Many  of  these  terms  are 
figurative,  some  of  them  elastic,  all  of  them  rich  in  meaning. 

Thus  the  style  of  John  differs  from  that  of  any  other  New  Testaniont  writer.  And 
the  study  of  Christ's  longer  discourses  preserved  in  his  (iospel  will  bring  to  view  a  marked 
resemblance  in  style  between  the  Master  and  his  disciples.  Let  us  now  return  to  the 
beginning  of  the  second,  stormy  period  of  the  Lord's  ministry  for  the  purpose  of  looking 
at  some  of  these  discourses.  That  period  was  initiated  by  hcnUiif/  <tn  infirm  mnn  in  one 
of  the  five  porches  of  the  Pool  of  Bethesda,  which  was  by  the  Sheep-gate.  (Notice  the 
particularity  of  the  description).  The  Mords  of  Jesus  to  the  man  were  few.  Wnuhh-at 
thou  he  made  tohoh'f  (Rev.  Ver.),  and,  ^Ir/'sr,  t/tke  i(p  thjj  bed  and  walk.  But  the  cure 
was  wrought  on  a  Sabbath  day.  and  the  leading  Jews  of  the  holy  city,  who  were  looking 
for  a  charge  against  Jesus,  repi'oved  the  man  who  had  been  healed  for  taking  up  his  bed 
on  the  Sabbath.  He  excused  himself  for  the  act  by  referring  to  the  command  of  Jesus; 
and  afterwards  Jesus,  finding  him  in  the  Temple,  said:  ''Behold,  thou  art  madeichole: 
sm  no  more,  lest  a  worse  thing  befall  thee  (Rev.  Ver.).  For  some  reason  the  man  then 
informed  the  Jews  that  it  was  Jesus  who  had  made  him  whole  ;  and  they  began  to 
persecute  Jesus  because  he  did  these  things  on  the  Sabbath.  And  his  response  to  their 
accusation  was:  J\Ji/  Father  worketh  even  until  now,  and  I vnrk.  "Therefore  the  Jews 
sought  the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he  not  only  brake  the  Sabbath,  but  also  called  God 
his  own  Father,  making  himself  equal  with  God"  (Rev.  Ver.),  and  he  proceeded  to 
vindicate  his  course  in  truly  remarkable  terms.  This  vindication  is,  however,  too  long 
to  be  quoted,  though  a  brief  analysis  of  it  may  be  given.  It  naturally  falls  into  two 
parts,  the  first  reasserting  and  amplifying  his  claim  to  be  in  a  special  sense  the  Son  of 
God,  doing  his  Father's  work  and  Avill,  and  the  second  bringing  forward  the  witnesses 
that  attested  his  claim,  but  were  stubbornly  rejected  by  his  persecutors.  In  the  Jirsf, 
while  passing  by  the  charge  of  desecrating  the  Sabbath,  and  replying  only  to  the  graver 
charge  of  blasphemous  assumption  in  claiming  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and  thus,  as  the 
Jews  conceived,  setting  himself  in  sharp  antagonism  to  God,  he  affirms  the  closest  union 
between  himself  and  the  Fatlier,  he  declares  himself  the  Son  of  God  in  so  true  and 
absolute  a  sense  that  it  is  morally  impossible  for  him  to  start  from  himself  as  the  source 
and  end  of  his  action,  impossible  for  him  to  do  anything  save  as  he  sees  the  Father 
engaged  in  doing  it ;  and  at  the  same  time  he  declares  himself  to  be  so  loved  by  the 
Father  that  the  Father  shows  him  all  his  work,  and  indeed  performs  it  all  in  and  by 
him,  imparting  spiritual  life,  raising  the  dead  in  the  last  day,  and  judging  all  mankind 
through  the  agency  and  person  of  the  Son,  to  the  end  that  men  may  honor  the  Son 
even  as  they  honor  the  Father.  In  the  second,  he  briefly  re-affirms  his  inseparable 
union  with  the  Father,  and  then  brings  forward  in  support  of  his  claims  the  witness  of 
John  the  Baptist,  who  was  a  lamp  kindled  and  shining,  the  witness  of  the  Father  which 
had  been  given  in  his  own  Godlike  works,  and  the  witness  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
which  his  enemies  professed  to  revere  as  a  source  of  life,  but  which  they  could  not 
understand  because  of  their  self-seeking  spirit. 

Now  it  will  be  observed  (1)  that  this  defense  and  vindication  of  his  claims  is  ad- 
dressed to  leading  Jews,  many  of  them  probably  scribes  and  lawyers  belonging  to  the 
Sanhedrin,  and  therefore  capable  of  understanding  the  drift  and  tenor  of  .such  a  dis- 
course.    They  were  men  familiar  with  the  Scriptures,  who  could  be  reached  and  coa- 


46  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

vinced  in  their  present  mood,  if  at  all,  not  by  parables,  but  by  the  boldest  assertion  of 
the  highest  truth  concerning  himself.  (2)  It  relates  to  his  own  person  and  office.  The 
scope  of  it  from  first  to  last  agrees  with  the  occasion  of  it.  True,  it  is  very  bold  in 
its  reproof  of  his  adversaries,  but  not  bolder  or  sharper  in  this  respect  than  much  that 
is  recorded  in  the  other  Gospels  as  having  been  said  by  him  to  the  same  class  {e.  g., 
Matt.  21  :  31  ;  23  :  13-36).  (3)  It  teaches  with  authority,  and  appeals  to  testimony  in 
the  same  way  as  do  some  of  Christ's  discourses  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  (Matt.  7  :  29 ; 
15  :  4).  There  is  in  it  no  subtle  argumentation,  no  attempt  to  make  everything  clear  to 
the  logical  understanding,  no  misapprehension  of  the  character  of  his  assailants,  or  per- 
suasion that  all  they  needed  was  light  for  the  reason.  Their  moral  bias  was  clearly 
perceived:  "How  can  ye  believe,  who  receive  glory  one  of  another,  and  the  glory 
that  Cometh  from  the  only  God  ye  seek  not?"  (Rev.  Ver.).  (4)  It  is  a  discourse  well 
suited  to  the  mind  and  heart  of  John,  for  it  is  a  luminous  assertion  and  vindication 
of  his  Master's  divine  Sonship  and  work.  If  the  Jews  were  not  moved  by  it  to  greater 
reverence  for  the  Lord,  this  disciple,  we  may  be  certain,  was.  It  is  impossible  to  read 
his  writings  without  perceiving  in  him  a  capacity  for  such  instruction.  His  loving  spirit 
would  drink  in  every  word  of  it.  From  it  he  may  have  first  learned  the  hsson  that 
Christ  is  our  life.  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  heareth  my  word,  and  be- 
lieveth  him  that  sent  me,  hath  eternal  life,  and  conieth  not  into  judgment,  but  hath 
passed  out  of  death  into  life.  .  .  .  For  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  even  so  gave 
be  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself"  (Rev.  Ver.).  Bearing  in  mind  all  these  facts, 
it  is  evidently  unnecessary  to  ascribe  to  John  any  influence  modifying  the  style  or 
thought  of  this  discourse. 

The  next  considerable  discussion  of  Jesus  recorded  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  took  "place 
in  Capernaum,  the  day  after  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand.  In  a  certain  way  it  grew 
out  of  that  n)iracle,  and  its  figurative  language  was  connected  with  it.  For  some  of  the 
tliousands  who  had  been  miraculously  fed  in  a  desert  place  on  the  northeast  shore 
of  Gennesaret,  and  had  wished  thereupon  to  take  Jesus  by  force  and  make  him  king, 
found  him  the  next  day  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake,  and  said  :  "Rabbi,  when  camcst 
thou  hither?"  As  often,  the  Lord  took  no  notice  of  their  question,  but  adapted  his 
word  to  their  spiritual  condition.  "  Ye  seek  me,  not  because  ye  saw  signs,  but  because 
ye  ate  of  the  loaves,  and  were  filled.  Work  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but  for 
the  meat  which  abideth  unto  eternal  life,  which  the  Son  of  man  shall  give  unto  you,  for 
him  the  Father,  even  God,  hath  sealed"  (Rev.  Ver.).  Thus  Jesus  announces  himself 
as  the  Gh-er  of  true  and  abiding  food  for  the  souls  of  men.  The  people,  however, 
catch  at  the  idea  of  "  working,"  and  ask  :  "  What  must  we  do  that  we  may  work  the 
works  of  God?"  And  the  answer  came  :  "This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe 
on  him  whom  he  hath  sent"  (Rev.  Ver.).  But  in  response  to  this  demand  for  fiiith  in 
himself,  they  ask  for  a  sign  from  heaven  to  justify  such  faith,  reminding  Jesus  of  the 
manna  which  was  given  to  their  ancestors  in  the  desert.  To  this  Jesus  replies  by 
denying  that  the  manna  was  given  by  Moses,  as  they  appear  to  have  been  thinking, 
and  by  affirming  that  his  Father  was  now  giving  them  the  true  bread  from  heaven — a 
bread  that  giveth  life  to  the  world.  Scarcely  comprehending  this,  and  doubtless 
associating  it  with  the  long  continued  supplj'  of  manna,  they  cried  :  "Lord,  evermore 
give  us  this  bread"  ;  and  Jesus  answered  :  "I  am  the  bread  of  life  :  he  that  conieth 
unto  me  shall  never  hunger,  and  he  that  believeth  on  me  shall  never  thirst."  The  Jews 
were  naturally  offended  at  this  saying,  and  pronounced  it  inconsistent  with  their  knowl- 
edge of  his  earthly  parents ;  but  he  repeated  and  amplified  it,  declaring,  among  other 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  47 


things,  that  the  fatliers  who  ate  manna  in  the  wilderness  died,  while  any  man  who 
should  eat  of  himself,  the  living  bread  that  had  come  down  out  of  heaven,  should  not 
die.  And  to  this  he  added  :  "  Yea,  and  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  fiesii,  ibr  the 
life  of  the  world"  (llev.  Ver.) ;  an  expression  which  led  to  still  further  debate.  "  IIuw 
can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat?  "  But  Jesus  persisted  in  his  form  of  teaching, 
and  even  carried  the  representation  a  little  further.  '"Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  not  life  in  yourselves.  He  that  eateth  my 
flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him  "  (Rev.  Ver.), — thus  affirming 
that  divine  life  could  only  be  secured  by  a  vital  union  with  himself  as  one  who  had 
suffered  death. 

Such  is  a  brief  sketch  of  what  the  Saviour  said  to  the  Jews  at  Capernaum,  and  the 
question  to  be  considered  is  this  :  Has  John  reported  his  Master  correctly  ?  Or  has 
he  unintentionally  changed  the  substance  or  form  of  that  Master  s  teaching?  In  favor 
of  John's  report  may  be  mentioned  :  (1)  The  obvious  connection  between  the  figurative 
language  of  Jesus  and  the  circumstances  of  the  hour.  Nothing  can  be  more  natural 
than  the  way  in  which  Christ  introduces  the  idea  of  spiritual  food,  and  then  represents 
that  it  had  been  sent  from  heaven  in  his  own  person.  This  finally  leads  him  to  speak  of 
his  death,  of  his  flesh  and  blood,  as  the  one  source  of  true  life  to  men.  And 
according  to  the  first  three  Gospels,  as  well  as  the  Fourth,  Jesus  was  accustomed  to  make 
use  of  natural  objects  or  passing  events  to  set  forth  in  a  striking  manner  the  facts 
or  laws  of  his  kingdom.  (2)  Those  parts  of  the  Gospel  in  which  John  uses  his  own 
language,  do  not  possess  all  the  qualities  of  paragraphs  here  ascribed  to  Jesus.  They 
make,  e.  g.,  less  abundant  use  of  illustration.  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  these  paragraphs 
seem  to  me  to  approach  much  nearer  the  manner  of  teaching  ascribed  to  Jesus  by  the 
Synoptical  Gospels  than  do  the  First  Epistle  of  John  and  the  prologue.  (3)  The  sub- 
sequent remarks  of  Jesus  on  this  occasion  bear  the  stamp  of  historic  truth.  Jesus, 
knowing  that  his  disciples  were  murmuring  at  his  final  saying,  added  :  "Doth  this 
cause  you  to  stumble?  What  then  if  ye  should  behold  the  Son  of  man  ascending 
where  he  was  before  ?  It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth  ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing  :  the 
words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  you  are  spirit,  and  are  life.  But  there  are  some  of  you 
that  beheve  not"  (Rev.  Ver.).  And  when  he  saw  many  of  his  disciples  leaving  him, 
he  said  to  this  twelve  :  "  Will  ye  also  go  away  ?  "  The  noble  answer  of  Peter  did  not 
deceive  the  Lord,  who,  foreseeing  the  unfaithfulness  of  Judas,  remarked,  sadly  :  "  Have 
I  not  chosen  you  twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil  ?  " 

The  next  conversation  of  Jesus  which  requires  notice  is  preserved  in  the  seventh 
and  eighth  chapters.  The  scene  of  it  was  Jerusalem,  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  and 
the  persons  with  whom  it  was  held  were  "the  Jews"  who  had  sought  to  kill  him  for 
healing  a  man  on  the  Sabbath,  and  yet  more  for  "making  God  his  own  Father."  It  is 
clear  from  the  colloquy  between  Jesus  and  his  brothers  before  the  latter  went  up  to  the 
feast,  from  his  manner  of  going  up  at  a  later  day,  ^.  e.,  "  not  publicly,  but  as  it  were  in 
secret,"  and  from  the  way  in  which  he  was  received,  that  "the  Jews"  had  lost  none 
of  their  hostility  to  him.  Naturally  enough,  therefore,  what  he  said  to  them  was  very 
similar  in  tone  and  substance  to  what  he  is  represented  in  the  fifth  chapter  as  saying  to 
them.  And  if  that  could  be  rationally  accounted  for  by  supposing  the  language  of 
Christ  to  have  been  adapted  by  him  to  the  persons  addressed,  this  can  be  accounted  for 
in  the  same  way. 

The  ninth  chapter  contains  an  account  of  the  giving  of  sight  to  a  man  who  had  been 
born  blind,  and  of  the  deadly  enmity  of  "the  Jews,"  which  was  rendered  more  intense 


48  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

by  that  great  miracle.  In  the  first  part  of  the  tenth  chapter  Jesus  speaks  of  hinisell 
as  the  Good  Shepherd  that  giveth  his  life  for  the  sheep,  and  in  the  last  part  he  asserts 
once  more  his  divine  Souship.  The  raising  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead  is  narrated  in 
the  eleventh  chapter,  and  the  triumphal  entrance  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem,  with  the 
brief  sayings  or  discussions  which  followed  that  exciting  event,  are  reported  in  the 
twelfth. 

The  next  four  chapters  (13-16)  are  filled  with  a  narrative  of  Christ's  last  passover 
with  his  disciples,  and  a  record  of  his  incomparable  words  to  them  in  view  of  his 
impending  crucifixion.  It  should  not  be  an  occasion  of  surprise  that  this  discourse 
diflFers  in  style  and  thought  from  any  other  attributed  to  Jesus  by  the  Evangelists. 
How  could  it  have  failed  to  be  different?  The  occasion  had  no  parallel  in  his  ministrj'. 
If  we  say  that  this  discourse  is  more  unlike  his  denunciation  of  the  Pharisees  in 
Matthew's  Gospel  than  David's  elegy  over  Saul  and  Jonathan  is  unlike  the  Second 
Psalm,  it  is  only  necessary  to  observe  that  the  contrast  between  the  occasions  was  more 
marked  in  the  former  instance  than  in  the  latter.  The  words  of  Jesus  were  in  both 
instances,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  perfectly  suited  to  the  occasion.  Here  it  was  his  last 
interview  before  the  crucifixion  with  his  dearest  and  truest  followers — men  whom  he 
knew  far  better  than  they  knew  themselves,  and  whom  he  loved  with  more  than  a 
brother's  affection.  Before  himself  were  shame,  agony,  torture,  and  death.  Before 
them,  a  trial  too  great  for  the  strongest  to  bear,  a  blow  so  terrible  that  by  it  they  would 
all  be  stunned.  Yet  with  what  matchless  forecast,  tenderness,  and  love  does  he  speak 
to  them  of  the  many  mansions  in  his  Father's  house,  of  his  oneness  of  spirit  with  the 
Father,  of  their  vital  union  with  himself,  of  the  divine  Advocate  whom  he  would  send 
to  abide  with  them  forever,  and  of  other  blessings  equally  precious,  until  the  reader 
who  enters  somewhat  into  the  spirit  of  the  record  is  lost  in  wonder  at  the  "sweetness 
and  light"  which  flow  in  his  words.  And  now,  having  communed  as  never  before 
with  his  disciples,  Jesus  offers  to  the  Father  a  prayer  which,  while  it  seeks  for  himself 
and  for  them  and  for  believers  in  all  times  just  that  which  the  holiest  most  crave  as  the 
highest  good,  completes  the  impression  which  he  desires  to  make  on  their  hearts. 

From  this  rapid  glance  at  the  principal  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  it 
appears  that  the  mental  conditions  or  special  circimistances  of  those  addressed  were  such 
as  might  lead  him  to  speak  much  of  himself,  of  his  Sonship  to  the  Father,  of  his  doing 
the  Father's  will,  of  his  relations  to  believers,  of  his  sacrificial  death  for  mankind,  of 
the  deeper  personal  and  vital  aspects  of  union  with  himself,  and  of  the  Spirit's  work  in 
days  to  come.  And  if  it  is  rational  to  believe  that  Nicodemus,  an  educated,  thoughtful, 
half-convinced,  but  over-cautious  or  timid  ruler  of  the  Jews, — that  a  woman  of  Sj'char, 
having  a  sense  of  sin  smouldering  in  her  soul,  and  with  it  an  expectation  of  the  Messiah 
as  a  religious  teacher,  without  the  disturbing  influence  of  looking  for  him  as  a  civil  ruler, 
— that  Jewish  leaders  who  had  resolved  to  kill  Jesus,  because  he  had  violated  their 
regulations  as  to  keeping  the  Sabbath  by  doing  cures  on  that  day,  and  their  ideas  of 
reverence  to  Jehovah  by  claiming  to  be  the  Son  of  God, — that  a  multitude  who  had  set 
their  hearts  on  making  Jesus  an  earthly  king,  while  thej'  were  indifferent  to  his  kingship 
in  the  realm  of  truth  and  eternal  life, — and  that  the  eleven  faithful  disciples,  just 
after  his  last  passover  with  them,  and  just  before  his  betrayal,  were  each  and  all  in 
spiritual  conditions  that  called  for  such  teaching  as  John  has  recorded,  we  may  certainly 
believe  that  it  was  uttered  by  Christ,  and  merely  reproduced  by  the  Evangelist.  For 
precisely  this  part  of  the  Saviour's  teaching  was  suited  to  the  nature  of  John,  and  likely 
to  sink  down  into  his  spirit.     And  that  which  attracts  the  soul  will  influence  its  character 


INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL.  49 


and  action.     The  type  of  thought  and  expression  which  awakens  the  deepest  response 
within,  will  re-appear  in  language,  and  send  its  echo  out  into  the  world. 

Hence,  the  resemblance  between  the  style  of  John  and  that  of  Jesus  in  the  dis- 
courses reported  by  John,  is  partly  due  to  the  influence  which  Christ's  deeper  teaching 
had  upon  the  thought  and  style  of  his  devoted  follower.  John  was  not  great  enough 
to  supplement  or  change  the  teaching  of  his  Master ;  but  he  was  great  enough  to  be 
moulded  in  an  extraordinary  degree  by  that  which  was  highest  in  the  personality  and 
teaching  of  that  Master.  Again,  this  resemblance  is  partly  due  to  the  mental  con- 
stitution of  John,  which  was  doubtless  predisposed  to  the  peculiar  type  of  thought  and 
expression  found  in  his  First  Epistle.  And,  therefore,  if  Jesus  had  always  spoken  as  the 
Synoptists  lead  us  to  suppose  that  he  generally  spoke,  the  style  of  John  would  doubt- 
less have  resembled  in  some  degree  that  which  we  see  in  his  First  Epistle.  But  if  Jesus 
had  always  spoken  after  the  Synoptic  pattern,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  John  would 
have  been  chosen  by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  write  a  Gospel,  or,  indeed,  have  been  drawn 
to  Jesus  as  powerfully  as  he  manifestly  was.  Once  more,  the  resemblance  of  John's 
style  to  that  of  certain  discourses  of  Christ  preserved  by  him,  may  be  closer  than  it 
would  have  been  if  he  had  given  all  the  words  spoken  by  Christ  in  those  discourses. 
No  doubt  his  reports  are  but  epitomes,  and  it  may  therefore  be  presumed  that 
he  has  omitted  sentences  and  illustrations  that  were  less  significant  and  impressive  to  his 
mind  than  those  which  are  given.  For  the  Holy  Spirit  avails  himself,  as  far  as  possible, 
of  the  special  powers  and  tendencies  of  those  whom  he  inspires.  Finallj',  the  re- 
semblance in  question  may  be  closer  than  it  would  have  been  if  John  had  given  us,  in 
all  cases,  the  ipsissima  verba,  instead  of  the  essential  thoughts  of  his  Master.  But  it 
was  impossible  for  him  to  do  the  former,  unless  he  had  written  his  Gospel  in  the 
Aramaean  dialect  used  by  Jesus.  And  it  was  likewise  unnecessary;  for  it  is  the  facts, 
the  principles,  the  thoughts,  expressed  by  Christ,  rather  than  the  particular  words  em- 
ploj'ed  in  doing  this,  which  reveal  to  men  their  moral  ruin  and  the  way  of  recovery. 
The  words  may  be  changed  by  translation,  by  paraphrase,  by  condensation,  by  repetition, 
without  serious  loss,  provided  the  essential  thoughts  are  neither  mutilated  nor  distorted. 
Many  illustrations  and  applications  of  truth  may  be  omitted  without  harm  to  the  reader, 
if  only  what  is  given  be  given  with  substantial  accuracy.  For  "the  heavens,"  though 
we  see  but  a  part  of  them,  "declare  the  glory  of  God."  John  himself  calls  attention 
to  the  fact  that  his  record  is  incomplete,  but  he  nowhere  intimates  that  it  may  be  in- 
correct. Yet  the  fragmentary  character  of  a  record,  though  it  be  correct  as  far 
as  it  goes,  is  likely  to  make  it  appear  abrupt,  disconnected,  and  perhaps  in  some 
degree  obscure.  It  is  not  therefore  surprising  that  imperfections  of  such  a  nature 
are  found  in  the  Fourth  Grospel.  All  history,  in  proportion  to  its  veracity,  contains 
them.  Any  alleged  record  of  human  life  on  a  large  scale  that  shows  in  full  the 
connection  of  events,  so  that  all  the  reasons  for  the  actions  narrated  are  manifest,  must 
be  fictitious — ideal  instead  of  real.  Hence,  the  broken  connections,  the  obscure  passages 
in  the  Gospels,  are  in  reality  signs  of  their  veracity,  marks  of  historical  trustworthiness. 
Bearing  in  mind  these  considerations,  we  are  unable  to  discover  any  solid  grounds  for 
withholding  our  confidence  from  John's  record  of  the  Lord's  discourses.  That  record 
we  receive  as  the  testimony  of  an  honest,  intelligent,  inspired  witness,  giving  us  the 
essential  truth  without  admixture  of  real  error. 

We  do  not  forget  that  Biblical  scholars  have  often  denied  to  John  the  authorship  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  on  the  ground  that  he  wrote  the  Book  of  Revelation.  For  it  is  in- 
credible, they  aver,  that  the  same  man  cotild  have  written  two  books  so  unlike  each 

D 


50  INTRODUCTION   TO   THE  GOSPEL. 

other  in  thought  and  expression  as  these.  The  diiference  asserted,  and  its  bearing  on 
the  question  of  authorship,  have  been  briefly  discussed  by  Dr.  Smith,  in  his  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Book  of  Revelation  ;  but  a  few  remarks  may  be  added  in  this  place  :  (1)  The 
difference  of  thought  between  the  two  books  is  not  doctrinal  but  practical.  The  object 
of  the  Grospel  is  not  the  same  as  that  of  the  Apocalypse.  For  the  former  aims  to  pro- 
duce belief  in  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  individual  men  who  trust  in  him,  while  the  latter 
aims  to  strengthen  confidence  in  Christ  as  One  who  is  able  to  do  battle  with  organized 
sin,  and  overcome  the  world  at  last.  Bat,  in  so  far  as  the  person  and  work  of  Christ  are 
concerned,  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the  two  books  is  identical.  (2)  The  difi'erence  of  ex- 
pression may  be  partially  explained.  First,  by  the  fact  that  one  of  the  books  is  his- 
torical, and  the  other  apocalyptical.  While  writing  the  former,  the  author's  mind  was 
engaged  in  a  deeply  interesting,  but  calm  review  of  the  past,  and  in  a  careful  statement 
of  familiar  events  ;  but  while  writing  the  latter,  it  was  "  in  the  Spirit,"  rapt,  entranced, 
and  filled  with  wondrous  visions  of  glory  or  terror.  Even  if  the  act  of  writing  or  dic- 
tating followed  after  the  last  vision  was  seen,  it  must  have  been  performed  before  the 
ecstatic  condition  and  illumination  had  entirely  passed  away.  Secondly,  by  the  fact  that 
the  two  writings  were  not  probably  composed  in  the  same  period  of  John's  life.  An 
interval  of  fifteen  or  twenty  years  may  lie  between  them.  If  the  Gospel  was  written  as 
early  as  A.  D.  80,  and  the  Revelation  as  late  as  A.  D.  98  or  100,  John  had  passed  from 
the  age  of  about  seventy-five,  to  the  age  of  about  ninety-five,  and  it  is  certainly  credible 
that  his  use  of  an  acquired  language  may  have  been  less  careful  at  the  greater  age  than 
it  was  at  the  less.  When  a  man  reaches  an  advanced  period  of  life,  he  sometimes  falls 
back  in  his  forms  of  speech  to  the  habits  of  youth.  Thirdly,  by  the  possible  circum- 
stance that  the  language  of  John,  in  the  Apocalypse,  was  taken  down  by  a  less  scholarly 
amanuensis  than  the  one  by  whom  his  Gospel  was  written  out.  For  an  amanuensis  may 
be  supposed  to  mend  or  mar  the  language  of  his  principal,  in  a  grammatical  respect, 
without  fliiling  to  give  every  word  dictated.  Especially  if  the  Gospel  is  supposed  to 
have  been  dictated  to  an  intelligent  Greek,  can  we  account  for  its  grammatical  correct- 
ness ;  for  by  his  aid  the  Hebrew  thought  of  John  might  have  been  expressed  in  gram- 
matical Greek  ;  while  this  might  not  have  been  always  the  case  with  a  less  Grecian 
amanuensis.  (3)  The  similarity  of  style  in  the  two  books  should  not  be  overlooked. 
For  this  is  marked  and  undeniable.  In  both  the  construction  is  simple  and  Hebraistic, 
perhaps  equally  so.  The  narrative  parts  of  the  Gospel  remind  us  of  the  story  of  Joseph 
in  Genesis :  the  symbolical  descriptions  of  the  Apocalypse  recall  the  style  of  certain  pas- 
sages in  Ezekiel  and  Daniel.  In  neither  do  we  meet  with  anything  that  is  suggestive  of 
Greek  habits  of  thought  or  expression.  Indeed,  the  difference  of  vocabulary  between 
the  books  is  sufficientlv  accounted  for  by  the  difference  of  themes,  while  the  similarity 
is  such  as  to  favor  the  tradition  of  a  single  author.  (4)  The  evidence  of  John  s  author- 
ship of  the  Apocalvpse  is  not  really  equal  to  that  for  his  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel and  the  first  Epistle.  For  Eusebius,  who  had  access  to  a  large  amount  of  early 
Christian  literature,  since  lost,  reckons  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle  among  the  undisputed 
books  ;  and  his  treatment  of  the  Gospel,  shows  that  he  felt  it  wholly  unnecessary  to  cite 
testimonies  in  its  favor.  But  the  same  cannot  be  said  of  the  Book  of  Revelation.  Its 
apostolic  authorship  had  been  questioned  before  that  time  by  certain  Christians,  and 
Eusebius  himself,  perhaps  on  doctrinal  grounds,  entertained  doubts  respecting  it.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  therefore,  if  Eusebius  is  to  be  trusted,  the  testimony  of  the  early 
church  is  stronger  in  support  of  the  Gospel  than  it  is  in  support  of  the  Apocalypse. 
And  if  the  question  were  to  be  answered  by  an  appeal  to  the  judgment  of  Irenaeus, 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  GOSPEL.  51 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  and  Tertullian,  who  flourished  a  hundred  years  earlier, 
the  same  conclusion  would  be  reached.  We  believe,  however,  that  both  writiuiis  are 
genuine,  and  the  work  of  the  same  apostle  ;  but  if  either  were  to  be  denied  him  it  should 
not  be  the  Gospel. 


III.  TIME  AND  PLACE  OF  ITS  COMPOSITION. 

No  external  or  internal  evidences  are  conclusive  as  to  the  precise  date  of  this  Gospel. 
But  ecclesiastical  tradition  points  to  a  time  after  the  other  genuine  Gospels  had  been 
written,  and  indeed  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus  in  the  year  70. 
Irenaeus,  whose  early  life  was  spent  in  Asia  Minor,  and  who  must  have  been  familiar, 
through  Polycarp,  with  the  work  of  John  in  Ei)hesus,  speaks  of  the  first  three  Gospels 
as  prepared  by  jMatthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  then  says:  "Afterwards  John,  the 
disciple  of  our  Lord,  the  same  that  lay  upon  his  bosom,  also  published  the  Gospel 
whilst  he  was  yet  at  Ephesus  in  Asia"  ("Adv.  liner."  IIL  i.  1).  Clement  of 
Alexandria  states  that:  "Last  of  all,  John,  perceiving  that  what  had  reference  to  the 
body  in  the  Gospel  of  our  Saviour  was  made  known  in  the  Gospels  [already  extant],  and 
being  encouraged  by  his  familiar  friends  and  moved  by  the  Spirit,  made  a  spiritual 
Gospel"  (Euseb.  "H.  E."  VI.  14).  Jerome  repeats  the  same  tradition,  adding  to  it 
several  particulars.  Moreover,  the  character  of  the  Gospel  favors  the  view  that  it  was 
the  last  of  the  four,  and  especially  does  the  way  in  which  "the  Jews  "  are  spoken  of 
imply  that  the  writer  had  been  absent  many  years  from  his  land  and  people.  Westcott 
assigns  the  origin  of  this  Gospel  without  hesitation  to  "the  last  quarter  of  the  first 
century,"  and  thinks  that  it  may  belong  "in  its  present  form  to  the  last  decennium  of 
that  period."  He  also  remarks  that  "this  late  date  of  the  writing  is  scarcely  of  less 
importance  than  its  peculiarly  personal  character,  if  we  would  form  a  correct  estimate 
of  the  evidence  whicli  establishes  its  early  use  and  authority." 

There  is  a  similar  lack  of  indubitable  testimony  as  to  the  place  where  this  Gospel 
was  written.  Yet  the  best  evidence  within  our  reach  points  clearly  to  Ephesus.  For 
early  tradition  represents  John  as  making  that  city  his  residence  and  the  centre  of  his 
apostolic  ministry  during  the  last  part  of  his  long  life ;  and,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
Irenaeus  declares  that  he  wrote  the  Gospel  there.  Polycrates,  Bishop  of  Ephesus  about 
A.  D.  190,  testifies  that  "John,  who  leaned  on  the  bosom  of  our  Lord  and  was  a  priest 
that  bore  the  sacerdotal  plate,  as  well  as  a  martyr  and  teacher,  rests  also  at  Ephesus ' ' 
(Euseb.  "H.  E."  III.  20).  According  to  Irenaeus,  he  lived  until  the  time  of  Trajan 
(a.  d.  98).  He  also  speaks  of  his  meeting  with  Cerinthus  the  heretic  in  a  bath,  and 
of  his  rushing  out  of  the  place,  declaring  that  he  dare  not  remain  under  the  same  roof 
with  this  enemy  of  the  truth  ("Adv.  Haer."  III.  3,  4).  Clement  of  Alexandria  has 
placed  on  record  the  story  of  a  young  man  whom  John  in  his  old  age  recovered  from  a 
course  of  robbery  and  sin  into  which  he  had  fillen  after  conversion.  (See  Quis  divea 
salutem  consequi  possiX  c.  42).  And  Jerome  relates  that,  when  very  old  and  feeble,  so 
that  he  could  not  walk,  he  had  himself  carried  to  the  meetings  of  the  church,  and 
there,  when  he  could  say  no  more,  repeated  the  words  :  Little  children,  love  one  another 
(In  "  Epist.  ad  Galatos,"  VI.  10).  We  may,  therefore,  rationally  hold  that  this  Gospel 
was  written  between  the  years  A.  D.  75  and  A.  D.  85,  in  the  city  of  Ephesus. 


52  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

IV.  THE  OCCASION,  OBJECT,  AND  PLAN  OF  THE  WORK. 

In  the  Fragment  on  the  Canon  discovered  by  Muratori,  it  is  said  that  John  was 
exhorted  by  his  feliow-diseiples  and  bishops  to  engage  in  writing  the  Gospel,  and  that  he 
asked  them  to  fast  with  him  three  days,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  ft-om  the  Lord 
a  message  in  relation  to  the  apostle's  duty.  It  is  also  said  that  x\ndrew,  one  of 
the  apostles,  received  the  same  night  a  revelation  that  John  should  describe  all 
things  in  his  own  name,  though  all  should  review  it.  Jerome  appears  to  have  given 
credit  to  a  similar  tradition,  for  he  relates  that  "John  last  of  all  wrote  a  Gospel,  when 
asked  to  do  so  by  the  bishops  of  Asia,  against  Cerinthus  and  other  heretics,  and 
especially  against  the  rising  dogma  of  the  Ebionites,  who  asserted  that  Christ  did  not 
exist  before  Mary"  ("Catal.  Script.  Eccl."  c.  9).  It  is  therefore  possible  that  the  ex- 
ternal occasion  for  this  Gospel  was  a  request  of  his  fellow-disciples  who  were  serving  the 
churches  of  Asia  Minor.  This,  perhaps,  is  all  that  can  be  safely  affirmed  ;  for  some  have 
urged  that  the  story  may  have  been  invented  to  account  for  the  last  verse  of  the  Gospel. 
Yet  we  detect  in  it  no  features  of  extravagance,  and  believe  it  may  be  true. 

But  the  religious  purpose  or  object  of  the  Gospel  is  of  far  greater  interest  to  us  than 
its  external  occasion.  What  was  there  at  that  time  in  the  state  of  the  churches,  or  in 
the  thought  of  the  world,  which  called  for  another  Gospel,  presenting  new  aspects  of 
the  Saviour's  teaching?  The  early  Christian  writers  do  not  perfectly  agree  in  their 
answers  to  this  question.  Irenoeus  declares  that  John  wrote  his  Gospel  "to  remove 
from  the  minds  of  men  the  error  which  Cerinthus  had  sown  therein,  and  still  earlier,  the 
Nicolaitans  ....  also  to  establish  in  the  church  the  rule  of  truth,  that  there  is  one 
God  Almighty,  who,  by  his  Word,  created  all  things,  visible  and  invisible,"  etc.  ("Adv. 
Haer. "  III.  11.  1).  Different  from  this  is  the  statement  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  to 
which  reference  has  already  been  made,  namely,  that  "John  last,  perceiving  that  the 
bodily  things  [relating  to  Christ]  had  been  made  manifest  in  the  Gospels  [previously 
written],  being  also  encouraged  by  his  intimate  friends  and  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
made  a  spiritual  Gospel,"  (''  H.  E. "  VI.  14).  Eusebius  himself  defends  another  view, 
namely,  that  John  wrote  his  Gospel  to  supply  the  deficiencies  of  the  first  three, 
particularly  their  omission  of  any  narrative  of  Christ's  ministry  before  the  imprisonment 
of  John  the  Baptist.  ' '  For  these  reasons  the  Apostle  John,  it  is  said,  being  entreated  to 
undertake  it,  wrote  the  account  of  the  time  not  recorded  by  the  former  Evangelists 
....  giving  the  deeds  of  Jesus  before  the  Baptist  was  cast  into  prison  ....  It  is 
probable,  therefore,  that  John  passed  by,  in  silence,  the  genealogy  of  our  Lord,  because 
it  was  written  by  ^latthew  and  Luke,  but  commenced  with  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity, 
as  a  part  reserved  for  him,  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  as  if  for  a  superior"  ("H.  E. " 
IIL  24). 

There  may  be  some  truth  in  every  one  of  these  representations.  The  erroneous 
teaching  of  that  period  may  have  led  the  Evangelist  to  select  for  his  Gospel  such  words 
and  deeds  of  the  Lord  as  would  be  likely  to  counteract  and  eradicate  that  insidious 
teaching.  Again,  the  circumstance  that  the  earlier  Evangelists  had  put  on  record  many 
of  the  parables  and  more  popular  sayings  of  Jesus,  may  have  led  John  to  see  the  need 
of  preserving  some  part  of  his  deeper  instruction  concerning  his  union  with  the  Father, 
and  the  spiritual  nature  of  his  reign.  And  precisely  this  instruction  may  have  been 
better  fitted  than  any  other  to  meet  the  errors  which  were  at  that  time  beginning  to  sap 
the  foundations  of  faith  in  Christ.  And  lastly,  the  apostle  maj'  have  remembered  that 
Jesus  began  to  assert   his  divine  origin   and  power  in  Judea  during  the  period  of 


INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL.  53 

liis  ministry  that  had  not  been  described  by  the  earlier  Evangelists,  and  their 
silence  may  have  been  an  additional  reason  for  including  in  his  narrative  some  ac- 
count of  that  period.  But,  v/hile  this  must  be  admitted,  the  question  may  arise 
whether  any  of  these  statements  rest  upon  tradition  reaching  back  to  the  time  of 
Jolin.  May  not  all  of  them  have  been  inferences  from  the  character  of  the  Book  itself? 
Possibly  ;  though  the  relation  of  Irenaeus  to  the  Elders  of  the  School  of  John  in  Asia 
Minor  leads  us  to  regard  his  testimony  of  some  historical  value.  Besides,  the  narrative 
concerning  John  and  the  young  robber,  which  Clement  of  Alexandria  relates,  renders  it 
probable  that  he  was  familiar  with  some  of  the  Asiatic  disciples  ;  and  the  reference 
which  Eusebius  makes  to  common  report,  by  "  it  is  said,"  forbids  us  to  suppose  that  he 
is  giving  a  mere  conjecture  of  his  own. 

Yet  we  find  no  clear  evidence  in  the  Gospel  itself  that  it  was  written  with  a  distinct 
purpose  of  supplying  deficiencies  in  earlier  narratives,  or  of  resisting  the  beginnings  of 
error,  or  of  giving  to  Christians  the  more  spiritual  aspects  of  their  Lord's  life.  If  the 
apostle  had  any  of  these  things  in  mind,  they  liiust  liave  been  altogether  subordinate  to 
the  one  comprehensive  aim  which  he  avows  near  the  close  of  his  narrative:  "Many 
other  signs  therefore  did  Jesus  in  the  presence  of  the  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in 
this  book  :  hut  these  are  loritten,  that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God ;  and  that  helieving,  ye  may  have  life  in  his  name.'^  Here  we  have  a  definite  state- 
ment of  the  object  for  which  the  Gospel  was  written.  With  this  key  in  his  possession, 
the  interpreter  may  unlock  the  rooms  of  this  divine  treasure-house,  and  bring  out  of  it 
stores  of  truth  and  grace.  It  is  needless  to  attempt  any  explanation  of  this  key,  any 
restatement  of  that  which  has  been  so  clearly  and  powerfully  expressed. 

But  how  did  the  writer  accomplish,  or  seek  to  accomplish  his  object?  What  is  the 
plan  of  his  great  argument  ?  Apparently,  a  very  simple  one.  The  Evangelist  first  gives 
his  own  view  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  then  justifies  that  view  by  a  recital  of  such  pas- 
sages from  the  history  of  Jesus — including  his  death  and  resurrection — as  prove  it  to  be 
correct.  Possibly  it  would  be  more  exact  to  say  that  he  justifies  the  truth  of  his  own 
view,  given  in  the  prologue,  by  a  selection  and  recital  of  certain  words  and  deeds  and 
events  in  the  history  of  Jesus  which  had  been  principal  sources  of  his  own  belief  and 
spiritual  life.  In  doing  this,  he  generally  follows  the  order  of  time,  and  testifies  of  what 
he  has  himself  seen  or  heard. 

A.  During  the  first  and  peaceful  period :  (1  :  19  ;  4  :  54).  (1)  The  witness  of  John 
the  Baptist,  {a)  before  the  deputation  of  Pharisees  from  Jerusalem,  to  the  priority  and 
superiority  of  Jesus  (1:  20  :  27)  ;  (6)  before  his  own  disciples,  to  his  being  the  Lamb  of 
God  (1:  36),  the  Son  of  God  (1:  34),  the  Christ,  and  the  Bridegroom  of  God's  people 
(3:  28-30).  (2)  The  witness  of  Jesus  as  to  himself  by  works  and  words  ;  (a)  by  mirac- 
ulous signs,  as  at  the  wedding  in  Cana  of  Galilee  (2:  1-11),  in  the  expulsion  of  traders 
from  the  Temple  (2:  13-22),  in  miracles  at  Jerusalem  (2:  23;  3:  2),  and  in  healing  the 
nobleman's  son  from  a  distance  (4:47-54) ;  {h)  by  words  manifesting  or  claiming  that  he 
had  superhuman  knowledge  as  to  Peter  (1:  42),  and  Nathanael  (1:  48),  that  he  was  the 
Son  of  God  and  King  of  Israel  (1:  49,  50),  that  he  had  special  communion  with  heaven 
(1:  51),  that  he  possessed  power  to  raise  his  dead  body  to  life  again  (2:  19,  21),  that  he 
had  direct  knowledge  of  heavenly  things,  because  he  had  been  in  heaven  (3:  12,  13),  that 
belief  in  himself  as  "lifted  up  "  on  the  cross,  was  the  condition  of  eternal  life  (3:  14, 
15).  that  he  was  the  giver  of  the  water  of  life  (4:  10,  14),  and,  indeed,  the  expected 
Messiah  (4:  25,  26). 

B.  During  the  second  or  controversial  period  {b:  1-12  :  50).      (1)  The  further  witness 


64  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

of  Jesus  as  to  himself,  (a)  by  healing  the  infirm  man  on  the  Sabbath  (5:  2-9),  by  feeding 
the  five  thousand  men  (6:  5-^14),  by  giving  sight  to  a  man  who  had  been  blind  from  birth 
(9:  1-7),  and  by  raising  Lazarus  from  the  dead  (11:  3-44);  and  (2)  by  asserting,  after  the 
first  miracle,  his  special  Sonship  to  the  Father,  and  unity  in  knowledge  and  action  with 
him  (5:  17,  19-30);  by  asserting,  after  the  second  miracle,  that  he  was,  himself,  God's 
bread  out  of  heaven,  and  so  the  source  of  eternal  life  to  those  who  should  believe  in 
him  (6:  27-40),  and,  indeed,  that  only  such  as  received  him  as  slain  for  them  could  have 
that  life  (6:  51-58),  also  that  he  was  the  Light  of  the  world  (8:  12),  and  One  who  had  a 
timeless  existence  like  God's  (8:  58);  by  affirming,  after  the  third  miracle,  that  he  was 
the  Son  of  God  (9:  36,  37),  and,  still  later,  that  he  was  the  Door  of  the  sheep,  and  the 
good  Shepherd,  giving  his  life  for  the  sheep  (10:  7,  11,  15),  having  power,  by  virtue  of 
his  oneness  with  the  Father,  to  keep  all  the  flock  (10:  28-30);  and  by  affirming,  in  con- 
nection with  th-e  last  miracle,  that  he  was  himself  the  llesurrection  and  the  Life  to  those 
who  should  believe  in  him  (1 1 :  25),  and,  soon  after,  that,  by  being  lifted  up  from  the 
earth  at  death,  he  would  draw  all  men  unto  himself  (12:  32).  This  is  only  a  brief  sketch 
of  his  answers  and  discussions  pertaining  to  his  nature  and  work. 

C.  During  the  third  and  final  jicriod  (13:  1;  21:  25).  (1)  By  exhorting  his  disciples 
to  belief  in  him  as  well  as  in  God  (14:  I),  by  declaring  that  he  was  the  AVay  and  the 
Truth  and  the  Life  (14:  6),  a  knowledge  of  whom  was  a  knowledge  of  the  Father  (14:  7), 
also  that  he  was  the  true  Vine,  in  whom  they  must  abide  as  branches,  in  order  to  have 
spiritual  life  (15:  1-C),  that  he  would  send  them  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  their  Advocate 
(14:  16,  17;  15:  26;  16:  7-15),  and  that  a  knowledge  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  was  eter- 
nal life  07:  3),  also  by  testifying  before  Pilate  that  he  was  King  in  the  realm  of  highest 
truth  (18  :  37,  38) ;  (2)  finally,  by  rising  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day  (20  :  1  sq.):  by 
lireathing  upon  his  disciiilcs,  and  saying  :  ''  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit"  (20  :  22),  by  ac- 
cepting divine  homage  from  Thomas  (20  :  28),  and  by  reinstating  Peter  in  the  apostleship 
(21:  15  sq.).  In  connection  with  all  these  claims  to  a  divine  nature  and  office,  there  is  a 
plain  recognition  of  his  human  nature,  with  all  its  normal  limitations. 


V.  AIM  AND  SOURCES  OF  THIS  COMMENTARY. 

The  writer's  aim  in  preparing  this  volume  has  been  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  sacred  text,  and  then  to  state  that  meaning  with  the  utmost  clear- 
ness consistent  with  suitable  brevity.  Yet  in  doing  this  it  has  been  deemed  important 
to  keep  always  in  view  the  practical  bearing  of  the  Saviour's  words,  and  to  call  attention 
frequently  to  that  bearing.  Not  critical  processes,  but  simply  the  results  of  such  pro- 
cesses, have  been  thought  to  be  entitled  to  any  considerable  si)ace  in  a  work  designed  for 
the  people.  And,  in  so  far  as  this  aim  of  the  writer  has  been  realized  in  the  Com- 
mentary, will  it  be  found,  he  is  confident,  useful  as  an  explanation  of  Holy  Scripture  to 
readers  of  every  class.  But  owing  to  the  exceeding  riches  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  in  the 
deep  things  of  God  and  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  the  work  must  fail  to  correspond  in  all 
respects  with  the  ideal  contemplated.  Of  this  the  writer  is  profoundly  conscious.  Yet 
the  study  of  the  Gospel  has  been  delightful  and  quickening,  even  though  the  attempt 
to  express  the  thoughts  of  the  Master  in  words  different  from  those  chosen  by  himself, 
or  by  the  disciple  whom  he  loved,  has  often  seemed  to  be  ineffectual,  if  not  irreverent. 
For,  verily,  beneath  the  tranquil  surface  of  this  Gospel,  which  is  filled  to  so  great  an 
extent  with  what  the  Lord  himself  said,  are  deep  and  fervid  ocean-currents  of  holy 


INTRODUCTION   TO   THE  GOSPEL.  55 


life  and  love,  which  no  one  can  undertake  to  explore  and  describe  without  being  made  to 
feel  the  dimness  of  his  vision  and  the  feebleness  of  his  speech. 

But  while  the  text  of  the  Gospel  itself  has  been  studied  with  special  and  principal 
care,  the  writer  has  made  constant  use  of  the  best  commentaries  and  nionograi)hs 
within  his  reach,  and  has  derived  from  them  important  aid.  Not  unfrequently  have 
citations  been  made  from  some  of  these  works,  but  their  helpfulness  has  been  greater 
than  would  be  inferred  from  the  passages  borrowed  from  them.  Among  the  books  that 
have  been  consulted  with  reference  to  the  authorship  of  the  Gospel  may  be  named  the 
anonymous  work  entitled,  "Supernatural  Religion,"  (6ed.);  especially  Vol.  II.,  and 
the  article  on  the  "Fourth  Gospel,"  in  the  ninth  edition  of  the  "Encyclopaedia 
Britannica,"  besides  a  great  number  of  volumes  or  articles  by  German  scholars  who 
deny  that  this  Gospel  was  written  by  the  Apostle  John.  In  favor  of  the  Johannean 
authorship  maybe  named  Westcott  "On  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,"  (5ed. ); 
Bleek,  "Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,"  8.  71  ;  Sanday  (W.),  "Authorship  and 
Character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel"  ;  Abbot  (Ezra),  "The  Authorship  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel"  ;  several  articles  in  the  "Contemporary  Review"  for  1875,  by  Lightfoot ;  also 
Luthardt,  "St.  John,  the  Author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,"  which  gives  in  the  Appendix 
a  list  of  the  most  valuable  works  on  the  subject  published  between  1792  and  1875.  To 
these  maybe  added,  "  Canonicity,  A  Collection  of  Early  Testimonies  to  the  Canonical 
Books  of  the  New  Testament,"  by  Prof  Charteris,  of  Edinburgh.  Among  the  com- 
mentaries which  have  been  used  most  freely,  the  following  deserve  to  be  mentioned, 
viz. :  those  of  Gill,  Alford,  McClellan,  Westcott,  Watkins,  Abbt)t,  Clark,  Milligan  and 
IMoulton,  in  English  ;  those  of  Liicke,  De  Wette,  Luthardt,  Meyer,  Hengstenberg, 
Ewald,  and  Weiss-Meyer,  in  German  ;  those  of  Calvin,  Lampe,  and  Bengel,  in  Latin  ; 
and  that  of  Godet,  in  French.  In  the  examination  of  the  Greek  text  the  critical  labors 
of  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort,  Scrivener,  Burgon,  Abbot,  and  Mc- 
Clellan, have  been  consulted;  also  Schaff's  "Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament  and 
English  Version." 


THE 


GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN. 


CHAPTER  I. 


[N  the  beginning  "  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  '  was  I  1 
with  God,''  and  the  Word  was  God. 


In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word 


iProv.  8:  22,  23,  etc.;  Col.  1 :  17  ;  1  John  1:1;  Rev.  1:2;  19:  13 b  Prov.  8:  30;  oil.  17  :  5 ;  1  John  1:2 c  Phil.  2:6;    1  Joliu  5:  7. 


The  object  for  which  John  wrote  the  Fourth 

Gospel  is  stated  by  himself  in  the  following 
words:  "These  are  written,  that  ye  may 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God;  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life 
in  his  name"  (20:3i,  Rev.  ver.).  For,  though  the 
term  "these"  refers  only  to  "the  signs"  nar- 
rated by  the  Evangelist,  it  may  be  certainly 
inferred  from  the  uniform  tendency  of  the 
Gospel  that  the  writer's  choice  of  "the  say- 
ings," as  well  as  of  "the  signs"  to  be  re- 
corded by  him,  was  influenced  greatly  by 
the  object  which  is  here  named. 

Ch.  1:  1-18.    The  Prologue. 

With  this  the  prologue  agrees;  for  it  in- 
troduces the  narrative  which  is  to  prove 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  by 
a  statement  concerning  his  being  and  work 
which,  for  simplicity,  completeness,  and 
depth,  has  never  been  approached.  By  this 
remarkable  statement  the  reader  is  furnished 
beforehand  with  an  interpretation  of  all  that 
follows,  and  is  invited,  as  it  were,  to  compare 
the  evidence  with  the  interpretation — if  it 
would  not  rather  be  more  correct  to  say, 
that  by  it  the  reader  is  prepared,  in  some 
measure,  to  interpret  aright  the  subsequent 
narrative  of  the  wonderful  words  and  works 
of  Jesus. 

This  introduction  to  the  narrative  embraces 
eighteen  versos,  and  may  be  divided  into 
three  parts.  The  _^?'s^  (ver.  1-5)  speaks  of  the 
original  being  and  the  permanent  offices  of  the 
Word;  the  second  (ver. 6-13),  of  the  treatment 
of  the  God-revealing  Word  by  men  ;  and  the 
third  (ver.  u-18),  of  the  incarnation  of  the 
Word,  by  which  God  was  most  clearly  re- 
vealed to  men. 

1-5.  Original  Being  and  Permanent 
Offices  of  the  Wokd. 

In  this  part  of  the  introduction  the  apostle 
speaks  with  absolute  certainty  of  the  original 
existence,  condition,  and  nature  of  the  Word, 


of  his  agency  in  the  creation  of  all  things, 
and  of  his  work  in  revealing  God  to  men. 

It  will  be  observed  that  tiie  Being  of  whom 
the  writer  speaks  in  this  paragraph  is  called 
the.  Word;  and  from  ver.  14  it  appears  that 
this  expression  is  used  to  denote  tlie  higher 
nature  of  Christ  before  that  nature  "was 
made  flesh."  Why  this  designation  was  ap- 
plied to  that  nature  in  its  pre-incarnate  state, 
is  not  explained  ;  yet  it  may  bo  r.afoly  as- 
sumed that,  whatever  else  recommended  it  to 
the  apostle,  its  own  proper  meaning  was  the 
principal  reason  for  his  choice  of  it. 

In  human  intercourse,  it  is  the  proper  office 
of  "the  word"  to  reveal  thought,  feeling, 
purpose,  character.  By  "rational  speech," 
the  natural  and  best  medium  of  expression, 
the  spirit  of  man,  itself  invisible,  makes 
known  its  being  and  will  to  others.  And 
therefore,  if  the  existence  and  perfection  of 
God  were  revealed  from  the  beginning  by  the 
higher  nature  of  Christ  which,  in  the  fullness 
of  time,  became  flesh,  no  other  designation  of 
that  nature  could  have  been  more  appropriate 
than  the  one  selected  by  John  for  this  para- 
graph. But  the  Evangelist  affirms,  in  his 
own  way,  that  the  being  and  character  of 
God  were  thus  revealed.  "In  him  was  life, 
and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men."  With 
the  utmost  propriety,  then,  this  Being  is  called 
"The  Word,"  that  is  to  say,  the  One  through 
whom  God  made  himself  known  to  man- 
kind. 

But  how  dijd  John  know  that  the  Being 
who  was  made  flesh  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ,  was  the  medium  of  divine  revelation 
from  the  first?  He  knew  this  doubtless  by 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  had 
been  sent,  according  to  the  Saviour's  pro- 
mise, to  guide  the  apostles  "into  all  truth" 
(i6:i:<).  But  in  what  way  did  the  Spirit  of 
Truth  impart  a  knowledge  of  divine  things  to 
the  apostles?  He  appears  to  have  done  this 
chiefly  by  such  action  upon   their  spiritual 

57 


58 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  I. 


powers  as  enabled  them  to  recall  and  com- 
prehend the  instructions  of  Christ,  and  also 
those  of  the  ancient  Scriptures.  In  other 
words,  the  truth  which  he  revealed  was,  for 
the  most  part,  evolved  from  what  had  been 
said  or  done  before.  Its  roots  were  in  the 
past ;  it  was  old  as  well  as  new  ;  and  we  may 
therefore  expect  to  find  germs  of  it  in  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  as  well  as  in  the  sayings  of 
the  Lord. 

Now,  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  which 
could  not  well  have  been  absent  from  the 
mind  of  John  when  he  wrote  the  opening 
sentences  of  his  Gospel,  the  word  of  God  is 
represented,  by  a  ninefold  repetition,  as  the 
medium  of  his  creative  energy.  By  the  sole 
agency  of  his  word,  he  originated  the  cosmos 
— the  world  of  order,  beauty,  and  life,  of 
which  man  is  the  crown.  But  there  is  here 
no  personification  of  this  word.  It  is  power- 
ful, simply  because  it  is  spoken  by  God.  It 
originates  order  and  beauty,  simply  because 
it  is  the  vehicle  of  divine  wisdom.  Yet  in 
one  expression  of  this  chapter:  "Let  us 
make  man  in  our  image,"  there  is  a  mysteri- 
ous hint  of  Divine  Society,  a  passing  glance 
at  some  plurality  of  a  personal  nature  in  the 
Godhead,  though  the  hint  does  not  represent 
the  word  of  God  as  having  any  part  in  that 
Divine  Society  which  is  suggested  by  the 
pronouns  "us"  and  "our." 

But  the  ancient  Scriptures  offered  more 
than  this  to  the  inspired  understanding  of 
John;  for  they  spoke  of  a  Being  who  was 
called  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  or  of  God,  the 
angel  that  wrestled  with  Jacob  and  redeemed 
Israel  from  all  evil,  the  angel  of  his  presence, 
and  the  angel  in  whom  was  God's  name,  as  if 
he  were  a  special  messenger  of  God,  repre- 
senting his  authority  and  glory ;  while  he 
was  also  called  God,  or,  his  Presence,  Jeho- 
vah, or,  I  am  that  I  am,  as  if  he  were  the 
true  God  manifesting  himself  to  men.  And 
these  various  designations  point  to  a  Being 
who  is  in  some  respects  identical  with  the  in- 
visible God,  and  in  other  respects  distin- 
guishable from  him — to  a  Being  through 
whom  the  true  nature  of  God  is  revealed  to 
men,  and  who  maj%  therefore,  be  called,  in 
the  highest  sense,  the  Word. 

But  the  mind  of  John,  quickened  and 
guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  would  readily 
connect  these  suggestions  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment with  many  references  that  were  made 


by  Christ  himself  to  his  existence  and  state 
before  the  incarnation.  For  the  Saviour  had 
spoken,  in  the  presence  of  his  disciples,  of  the 
glory  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before 
the  world  was;  of  himself  as  the  only  being 
who  knew  the  Father  and  could  reveal  him 
to  men  ;  of  his  knowledge  of  heavenly  things ; 
of  his  coming  into  the  world  from  above; 
and  of  his  being  the  Life,  the  Light,  and  the 
Truth,  in  a  pre-eminent  sense :  and  these 
wonderful  sayings,  when  added  to  the  signifi- 
cant intimations  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
interpreted  by  a  mind  full  of  the  Spirit  of 
Truth,  may  have  sufficed  to  give  the  Evangel- 
ist his  surprising  knowledge  of  the  Divine 
Word ;  or,  at  least,  may  have  prepared  him 
for  the  direct  illumination  of  the  Spirit  as  to 
the  ofiBce  of  the  higher  nature  of  Christ 
before  the  incarnation. 

It  is,  therefore,  unnecessary  to  suppose  that 
the  knowledge  in  question  was  imparted  to 
John  by  the  Spirit  as  a  wholly  new  revela- 
tion, foreshadowed  by  nothing  in  the  past,  or 
that  it  was  borrowed  from  any  philosophical 
or  Rabbinical  source.  Divine  revelation  is 
itself  progressive;  "first  the  blade,  then  the 
ear,  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear."  The 
fountain  from  which  the  apostle  drew,  in 
writing  the  prologue,  was  neither  the  doc- 
trine of  Philo  concerning  the  Logos,  nor  the 
doctrine  of  the  scribes  concerning  the  Memra 
or  the  Bath-Kol,  but  it  was  the  teaching  of 
the  prophets  and  of  Christ,  unfolded  and 
complemented  by  the  work  of  the  Spirit. 
We  do  not,  however,  deny  that  the  religious 
speculations  of  Philo,  and  other  Jews,  may 
have  prepared  the  minds  of  Christian  people, 
in  some  measure,  to  understand  John's  use  of 
the  term  Logos.  Never  before,  it  may  be, 
would  the  meaning  which  he  put  into  this 
word, as  a  designation  of  the  higher  nature  of 
Christ, have  been  so  readily  apprehended  by 
those  for  whom  his  Gospel  was  written.  Yet 
the  doctrine  of  Philo  as  to  the  Logos  is,  in 
many  respects,  very  different  from  that  of 
John,  and  it  is  impossible  to  discover  in  his 
writings  the  source  of  John's  Christology. 

1.  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word. 
(Compare  Gen.  1:1;  1  John  1:1,  2;  John 
17:5;  Eph.  1:4;  Rev.  3:14;  Prov.  8:23.) 
This  expression  affirms  the  existence  of  the 
Word  at  the  time  referred  to  in  the  opening 
verse  of  Genesis,  when  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth.     He,  the  Word,  was 


Ch.  I.] 


JOHN. 


59 


alreddy  in  being  when  that  which  before  was 
not  began  to  be.  His  existence,  therefore,  is 
witiiout  beginning,  or  eternal.  This  is  a 
logical  inference  from  the  statement  of  John, 
and  it  is  also  suggested  by  the  verb  (V)  which 
he  employs.  For  there  are  two  Greek  verbs 
by  means  of  which  he  is  wont  to  express  the 
idea  of  existence,  one  of  tbem  signifying  ex- 
istence with  an  implication  of  origin,  and  the 
other  signifying  existence  with  no  such  im- 
plication. The  latter  word  is  used  in  this 
place,  and  in  the  last  part  of  the  declaration, 
"before  Abraham  was,  I  am"  {^■^>*)\  while 
the  former  is  used  in  verse  6,  below : 
"There  was  (arose,  appeared,)  a  man  sent 
from  God,"  and  in  the  first  member  of  the 
saying,  "before  Abraham  was  {came  to  be),  I 
am."  The  eternal  existence  of  the  Word  is, 
therefore,  logically  implied  and  verbally 
suggested  in  the  first  sentence  of  this  Gospel. 
— And  the  Word  Avas  with  God,  (Compare 
1  John  1:2;  John  17  :  5  ;  1  :  18. )  An  expres- 
sion which  brings  to  mind  the  words  of 
Genesis:  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image." 
For  the  preposition  here  used  points  to  inti- 
macy, and  so  to  distinction  of  a  personal 
nature  between  the  Eternal  Word  and  the 
God  revealed  b}'  him.  If  the  Evangelist  had 
said  "in  God,"  it  might  have  been  supposed 
that  he  had  in  mind  some  attribute  of  God, 
e.  g.,  reason  ;  if  he  had  said  from  God,  it 
might  have  been  supposed  that  he  had  in 
mind  something  impersonal,  issuing  from 
God,  as  creative  energy  ;  but  he  has  used  a 
preposition  which  "expresses,  beyond  the  fact 
of  co-existence,  or  immanence,  the  more  sig- 
nificant fact  of  perpetuated  intercommunion." 
— Liddon.  According  to  Godet,  this  preposi- 
tion "expresses  jDroxwHi^y ;  but,  combining 
•with  this  notion  that  of  drawing  near,  it  indi- 
cates an  active  relation — a  felt  and  personal 
communion."  (Compare  Mark  6:3;  .9:19; 
Matt.  13:56;  26:55;  1  Cor.  16:6  sq.  ;  Gal. 
1:  18;  4:  18.)  And  Westcott,  commenting 
on  the  passage,  remarks  that  "the  idea  ex- 
pressed by"  the  phrase  was  with  {f,v  wpos), 
"  is  not  that  of  simple  co-existence,  as  of  two 
persons  contemplated  separately  in  company 
{Ava.1  ittra  3:22),  or  united  under  a  common 
conception  (eWi  <jvv,  Luke  22 :  56),  or  (so  to 
speak)  in  local  relation  (elfoi  napi  17  :  5),  but 
of  being  (in  some  sense)  directed  towards  and 
regulated  by  that  with  which  the  relation  is 
fixed    (5:19).     The    personal    being    of    the 


Word  was  realized  in  active  intercourse 
with  and  in  perfect  communion  with  God." 
.  .  .  "This  life  (iJoiiniti)  'was  with  the 
Father'  ;  it  was  realized  in  the  intercom- 
munion of  the  Divine  Persons  when  time 
was  not."  "This  expression,  as  in  1  John 
1 :  2,  also  denotes  the  presence  of  the  Logos 
with  God  from  the  point  of  view  of  inter- 
course. ...  So  in  all  the  other  passages 
where  it  appears  to  mean  simply  by  or  vnth. 
Mark  6  :  3;  9  :  19;  Matt.  13  :  56;  26  :  55;  1 
Cor.  16  :  6  sq.  ;   Gal.  1  :  18  ;  4  :  18."—  Weiss. 

The   Word    knows  and   loves  the    Father 
whom  he  reveals ;  his  relation  to  God  ante- 

I  dates  and   conditions    his    relation  to   man. 

j  With  this  proposition  may  be  compared  the 
words  of  Christ:  "And  now.  Father,  glorify 
thou  me  with  thine  own  self  with  the  glory 
which  I  had  witii  thee  before  the  world  was" 
(17:5),  und,  "No  one  knoweth  the  Son,  save 
the  Father;  neither  doth  any  one  know  the 
Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son 

Willeth  to  reveal    him"   (Mau.  n:27.  Rev.  Ver.)  ;    for 

these  two  saj'ings  are  a  suflScient  foundation 
for  the  statement  that  "  the  Word  was  with 
God."     (See  also  1  John  1:2.) 

Having  asserted  the  eternal  existence  and 
communion  of  the  Word  with  God,  the 
Evangelist  adds  another  fact  of  supreme  in- 
terest to  his  account  of  that  Being,  viz. — And 
the  Word  was  God.  This  is  the  only  cor- 
rect translation  of  the  clause ;  and  it  would 
have  been  diflScult  for  .John  to  construct  a 
more  definite  and  emphatic  assertion  of  the 
proper  deity  of  the  Word.  For  the  terms  of 
this  clause  are  so  arranged  in  the  original 
that,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, the  emphasis  falls  upon  the  term 
God.  Hence  the  Evangelist  pronounces  the 
pre-existent  Word  to  be  strictlj'  and  fully 
Divine.  Although  distinguishable  in  a  per- 
sonal respect  from  the  Father,  in  essence  and 
nature  he  was  truly  God.  The  construction 
of  the  sentence  is  precisely  the  same  as  that 
of  John  4:  24:  "God  is  a  Spirit,"  where  by 
virtue  of  its  position  the  term  "  spirit"  is  em- 
phatic, and  is  used  to  define  the  nature  and 
essence  of  God.  (See  also  1  John  1 :  5,  "God 
is  light,"  and  John  3 :  29,  "He  that  hath  the 
bride  is  the  bridegroom.")  Meyer  quotes 
from  Luther  the  pithy  remark,  "The  last 
proposition,  the  Word  was  God,  is  against 
Arius;  the  other,  the  Word  was  with  Ood 
against  Sabellius." 


60 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  I. 


2  "The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God.  I  2  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.    The  same 

3  'All  things  were  made  by  him;  and  without  him     if  was  in  the  beginning   with   God.     All  things  were 
was  not  any  thing  made  that  was  made.  |      made  through  him  ;  and  without  i  him  2  was  not  an y- 


aGea.l:  I....&P9.  .13:8: 


Rev.  4:   11. 1  Or,  hy 2  Or,  wot  not  anything  made. 

in  him:  and  the  life,  etc. 


2o  The  same  (or,  This  one)  was  in  the 
begiuuiiig  with  God.  The  three  proposi- 
tions of  the  first  verse  are  here  reduced  to 
one,  and  solemnly  re-affirmed.  For  the  pro- 
noun (oCto?),  translated  The  same,  appears 
to  represent  the  Word  as  he  is  described  in 
the  last  and  highest  assertion  of  thiit  verse, 
an  assertion  which,  on  account  of  its  meaning 
and  position,  must  hold  the  first  place  in  the 
mind  of  writer  or  of  reader.  This  Being, 
himself  by  essence  and  nature  God,  was  in 
the  beginning  with  God,  which  emphatic 
repetition  of  tlie  first  verse  prepares  the  way 
for  the  statement  that  follows  in  verse  third. 
And  the  practice  of  repeating  an  important 
truth  for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  or  of  prepar- 
ing the  mind  for  some  connected  truth,  is 
characteristic  of  this  Evangelist's  style. 

3.  All  things  were  made  by  him.  The 
Greek  word  translated  All  things  (wdvra), 
means  every  object  in  the  universe;  not  the 
universe  as  a  great  whole,  made  up  of  num- 
berless parts,  but  all  the  parts,  however  nu- 
merous and  dissimilar,  that  exist  in  the  wide 
universe.  All  these  owe  their  existence  to 
the  agency  of  the  Word.  Through  him  they 
came  to  be  (eyeVeTo).  For  the  term  which  is 
rendered  were  made,  signifies  in  itself  he- 
came  or  came  to  be,  and  only  by  virtue  of  its 
connection  with  an  agent  does  it  take  the 
meaning  were  made.  The  preposition  by, 
or  through  (S«£),  represents  the  Word  as  the 
mediating  and  proximate  cause  of  the  exist- 
ence of  all  things,  and,  interpreted  by  other 
statements  of  Scripture,  suggests  the  will  of 
the  Father  as  the  first  cause  of  their  exist- 
ence. By  the  agency,  therefore,  of  the 
Word,  the  being  and  power  of  the  invisible 
God  were  expressed  in  things  created. — And 
without  him  was  not  anything  made 
that  was  made  (lit.,  has  been  ■>nade).  The 
same  thought  is  here  repeated  in  a  negative 
form.  Not  one  of  all  the  objects  that  have 
been  brought  into  being  and  now  exist,  was 
made  without  him.  Look  abroad,  O  man, 
over  the  universe,  and  consider  all  its  parts, 
great  and  small !  There  is  not  one  of  them 
which  does  not  owe  its  existence  to  the 
agency  of  that  Divine  Word  who  was  in  the 


beginning  with  God.  With  this  declaration 
should  be  compared  the  language  of  Paul  to 
the  Colossians :  "Who  is  the  image  of  the 
invisible  God,  the  first-born  of  all  creation; 
for  in  him  were  all  things  created,  in  the 
heavens  and  upon  the  earth,  things  visible  and 
things  invisible,  whether  thrones  or  dominions 
or  principalities  or  powers:  all  things  have 
been  created  through  him  and  unto  him ; 
and  he  is  before  all  things;  and  in  him  all 

things  consist"    (l:15-17,  Rev.  Ver.). 

It  may  be  added  that  the  statement  of 
John  in  this  verse  appears  to  affirm  the  crea- 
tion of  ever^'thing  that  exists  save  the  God- 
head. For  to  say  that  "all  things  came  into 
being"  through  the  agency  of  the  Word,  is 
tantamount  to  saying  that  the  entire  reality, 
the  substance  as  well  as  form  of  things,  was 
due  to  the  Word.  This,  to  say  the  least,  is 
the  most  obvious  interpretation  of  the  phrase, 
and  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  which 
fairly  suggests  a  different  one.  That  Grecian 
philosophy  pronounced  matter  eternal  is  no 
sufficient  reason  for  supposing  that  the  Evan- 
gelist believed  it  eternal,  and,  on  that  ac- 
count, would  not  speak  of  it  as  created.  It 
must  now  be  added  that  many  editors  and 
interpreters  close  the  third  verse  with  the 
words,  without  him  was  not  anything 
made,  and  begin  the  fourth  verse  thus: 
That  which  hath  been  tnade  was  life  in  him. 
But  the  earl^'  authorities  are  not  conclusive; 
and  '\f  that  which  hath  been  made  had  been 
intended  by  the  writer  to  go  with  what  fol- 
lows, he  would  surely  have  written  "is 
life,"  instead  of  "was  life"  ;  or  if,  for  any 
reason,  the  past  tense  had  been  here  pre- 
ferred, the  previous  verb  would  have  been, 
was  made  (iyeyero),  rather  than  hath  been 
made  (yiyovtv).  Indeed,  sevenil  manuscripts 
and  versions  have  is,  instead  of  was  ;  but 
the  evidence  for  was  decidedly  outweighs 
that  for  is,  though  is  would  have  been  more 
readily  substituted  for  was,  than  Avas  for  is, 
by  the  early  Fathers  who  generally  con- 
nected which  hath  been  made  with  what  fol- 
lows. W^e,  adhere  then,  with  AVeiss  and  a 
majority  of  modern  scholars,  to  the  ordinary 
punctuation  as  correct,   even  though  we  do 


Ch.  I.] 


JOHN. 


61 


4  "In  hiui   was  life;  and  'the  life  was  the  light  of 
men. 

5  And  «tbe  lis'it  sliineth  in  darkness;  and  the  dark- 
ness comprehended  it  not. 


4  thing  made  that  hath  been  made.    In  him  was  life; 

5  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men.     And  the  light 
shineth  in  the  darkness;  and  the  darkness  'appro- 


ach. 5:  26;  IJobn  5:  II &  ch.  8:  I'i;  9:  &;  12:  35,  16 c  ch.  3:  19. 1  Or,  overcome.    Seech.  12:  35  (Or.). 


not  insist  on  the  fact  that  the  other  punctua- 
tion introduces  a  mystical  and  unintelligible 
expression. 

4. .  In  him  was  life;  i.  e.,  life  in  the 
highest  sense,  spiritual  life,  springing  ever- 
more, in  his  case,  from  direct  vision  of  God 
and  perfect  fellowship  with  him  (compare 
17:  3,  and  1  John  1:  2).  This  seems  to  be 
the  idea  of  true  life  from  the  religious  point 
of  view  taken  by  the  Evangelist.  And  the 
object  of  this  sentence  is  to  assert  that  life,  in 
the  truest  and  deepest  sense  of  the  word, 
belonged  to  the  Logos  from  the  beginning, 
thus  preparing  the  reader's  mind  for  what 
the  Evangelist  was  about  to  state  as  the  sec- 
ond office  or  work  of  the  Word.  This  clause, 
therefore,  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the 
next  as  the  second  verse  stands  to  the  third. 
— And  the  life  was  the  light  of  men;  i.  e., 
the  life,  as  it  was  realized  in  the  Divine 
Word,  spiritual,  holy,  blessed,  consisting  in 
perfect  knowledge  of  the  Father  and  com- 
munion with  him.  All  true  knowledge  of 
God  on  the  part  of  men  has  come  from  the 
Word.  Through  him,  and  through  him 
alone,  have  men  been  enabled  to  see  and 
know  the  Father  of  lights.  All  revelation 
of  the  Divine  Being,  whether  to  Israel  or  to 
the  nations,  has  been  mediated  by  him.  This 
interpretation  will  be  confirmed  by  a  careful 
study  of  the  Evangelist's  use  of  terms  and  by 
the  end  for  which  his  Gospel  was  written. 
But  two  questions  may  be  asked :  Why  is  life 
conceived  of  as  the  source  or  principle  of 
light?  And  why  is  light  made  the  symbol  of 
divine  revelation  ?  If  we  can  answer  these 
questions,  we  shall  be  prepared  in  some  de- 
gree to  understand  the  Fourth  Gospel.  In 
answering  the  second  question,  it  may  be  said 
that,  in  the  natural  world,  light  is  the  means 
of  sight,  and  that  so  much  of  human  knowl- 
edge depends  on  sight,  and  therefore  on  light, 
as  to  make  it  suitable  to  use  the  word  light  to 
denote  any  means  of  knowledge.  To  see  is 
to  know,  and  to  know  is  to  see,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  common  life.  We  see  an  argument 
as  clearly  as  we  do  a  mountain,  and  we  know 
a  color  as  well  as  we  do  an  axiom.  Hence  if 
divine  revelation  brings  to  men  a  knowledge 


of  God,  it  is  light,  that  is,  a  means  of  spirit- 
ual vision;  and  inasmuch  as  this  knowledge 
is  the  highest  and  only  satisfying  knowledge, 
he  who  brings  it,  is  pre-eminently  "the  light 
of  men."  But  the  Divine  Word  is  the  Ono 
Being  through  whom  God  is  made  known  to 
men,  and  he  is  therefore  most  fitly  called 
the  light  of  men.  (Compare  1:  17,  18;  8: 
12;  14:  6;  Matt.  11:  27.)  In  answering  the 
first  question  :  Whj'  does  the  Evangelist  start 
with  life,  as  if  this  were  the  source  or  princi- 
ple of  light— as  if  the  Word  could  be  the 
light  of  men  only  because  there  was  in  him 
the  true  and  perfect  life? — we  may  say,  that 
all  knowledge  presupposes  life.  Intuition, 
perception,  experience,  are  functions  of  life. 
A  teacher  must  know  what  he  teaches;  ii 
revealer  must  be  acquainted  with  him  whom 
he  reveals.  Tl)e  highest  life  of  which  the 
Saviour  speaks  in  this  Gospel  consists  in 
knowing  Gad;  and  he  himself  had  possessed 
that  life  from  eternity.  Fellowship  with  the 
Father — a  life  which  had  been  identified  with 
the  Father's  in  knowledge,  feeling,  and  pur- 
pose, so  that  the  whole  fullness  of  the  divine 
mind  was  his— qualified  him  to  be  the  light  of 
men.  Out  of  this  perfect  life  came  the  light 
which  enlightens  every  man  (ver.  9).  Atten- 
tion may  also  be  called  to  the  universality  of 
the  term  men.  As,  in  ch.  8:  12,  Jesus  is 
represented  as  having  said  :  "I  am  the  light 
of  the  world" — that  is,  not  of  the  Jews  only, 
but  of  all  mankind — so  in  this  place  the 
Evangelist  declares  that  the  life  of  the  Word 
was  the  light  of  men.  Nothing,  indeed,  is 
said  concerning  the  process  by  which  the 
knowledge  of  the  Eternal  Word  had  been 
imparted  to  men  before  his  incarnation;  but 
the  fact  that  he  was  the  source  of  their 
knowledge  uf  Go.l  is  broadly  affirmed.  And 
this  affirmation  is  in  harmony  with  his  own 
sayings.  (See  the  last  three  passages  referred 
to  above^. 

5.  And  the  light  shineth  in  (the)  dark- 
ness. According  to  Meyer,  the  emphasis 
falls  upon  the  expression  in  {the)  darkness. 
This  expression  introduces  the  new  thought 
of  the  verse,  and  in  the  original  precedes  the 
verb  shineth,  an  order  of  words  which  calls 


62 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  I. 


6  "There  was  a  man  sent  from  God,  whose  name  «i(w  |  6  hended  It  not.    Tliere  came  a  man,  sent  from  God, 
John.  I  7  whose  name  was  John.     The  same  came  for  witness. 

7  *  The  same  came  for  a  witness,  to  bear  witness  of  I      that  he  might  bear  witness  of  the  light,  that  all 
the  Light,  that  all  men  through  him  might  believe.  | 

a  Mai.  3:1;  Matt.  3:1;  Luke  3:2;  ver.  33 h  Acl8  19 :  4. 


special  attention  to  the  new  thought.  More- 
over, the  emphasis  is  increased  by  the  use  of 
an  abstract  instead  of  a  concrete  term  to  de- 
note the  sphere  in  which  the  light  shines; 
for  the  darkness  evidently  means  sinful 
humanity,  or  the  wcrld  as  it  lies  in  "the 
wicked  one."  But  why  is  the  present  tense 
employed?  Many  have  answered:  Because 
the  Evangelist  wishes  to  characterize  this 
action  of  the  light  as  constant,  continuous, 
through  all  time.  The  light  always  shines, 
because  it  is  its  nature  to  shine.  But  it  is, 
perhaps,  equally  natural  to  suppose  that  the 
present  tense  was  selected  because  the  Evan- 
gelist wished  to  say  that  in  his  own  time  the 
light  was  shining  still,  in  spite  of  all  that  had 
been  done  to  obscure  it.  This  view  is  favored 
by  the  change  of  tense  in  the  next  sentence. 
—And  the  darkness  comprehended  it 
not.  Better,  with  Wcstcott,  Schalf,  AVeiss, 
and  the  Greek  Fathers,  overcame  it  not. 
John  uses  the  verb  in  but  one  other  passage 
(12:35),  where  the  meaning  is  to  "come  down 
upon,  to  enwrap."  "As  applied  to  light," 
remarks  We.stcott,  "this  sense  includes  the 
further  notion  of  overwhelming,  eclipsing." 
The  darkness  had  indeed,  according  to  its 
nature,  re-acted  against  the  light,  in  order  to 
suppress  it ;  Calvary  had  witnessed  this  con- 
flict; but  it  did  not  succeed  in  quenching  the 
light.  And  because  in  that  crucial  attempt 
of  moral  darkness  to  overcome  the  true  light, 
it  signally  failed,  the  light  shines  on  even 
now.  This  interpretation  is  preferable  to  the 
one  which  is  suggested  by  the  word  "compre- 
hended" ;  especially  if  this  word  be  equiva- 
lent to  "  understood." 

6-13.  Treatment  of  the  God-reveal- 
ing LiGgT  BY  Men. 

0.  There  was  a  man  sent  from  God, 
whose  name  was  John.  The  word 
(€7ei'eTo)  translated  was,  signifies  primarilj' 
"became,"  and  is  sometimes  used  with  refer- 
ence to  birth,  as  in  Gal.  4:4.  But  it  maj' 
also  denote  such  an  event  as  the  historical 
appearance  of  John  to  the  people  as  a  mes- 
senger of  God;  and  this  seems  to  be  its  im- 
port here.  The  added  expression,  sent  from 
God,  characterizes  John  as  a  true  prophet, 


one  entrusted  with  a  special  message  or  mis- 
sion from  God.  (See  3:2,  and  Mai.  3:1.) 
The  writer  of  this  Gospel,  here  and  else- 
where, calls  the  harbinger  of  Christ  simply 
John,  as  none  but  the  Apostle  John  would 
be  likely  to  do.  Any  other  writer  would 
have  distinguished  him  from  the  apostle  by 
calling  him  John  the  Baptist.  See  Introduc- 
tion, p.  23. 

7.  The  same  came  for  a  witness  (or, 
more  briefly,  for  witness).  The  chief  end 
for  which  John  the  Baptist  appeared,  is  here 
expressed  by  a  single  word,  "  testimonj',"  or 
"witness"  (ii.ixprvpi.a).  This  was  the  highest 
and  immediate,  if  not  the  only,  object  of  his 
mission  to  the  people.  And  the  difference 
between  teaching  or  preaching,  and  bearing 
witnes.s,  should  be  borne  in  mind.  (Compare 
3  :  11,  32;  15  :  27  ;  also  1  :  19  ;  8  :  13,  14;  19  : 
35;  21  :  24.)  One  bears  witness  of  what  he 
knows  by  personal  observation,  or  by  reve- 
lation from  God. — To  bear  witness  of 
the  Light.  (Compare  1 :  33,  34.)  Literally, 
that  he  anight  bear  witness  concernitig  the 
light.  This  clause  repeats  the  idea  of  the 
foregoing,  together  with  a  statement  of  the 
person  concerning  whom  the  testimony  was 
to  be  given.  That  person  is  here  called  the 
Light,  because  in  and  through  him  divine 
truth  was  offered  to  the  souls  of  men.  John 
was  indeed  "the  lamp  kindled  and  shining" 
(5:35),  but  he  was  in  no  proper  sense  "the 
Light."  His  light  was  borrowed  and  dim, 
but  Christ  was  light,  self-revealing  and  God- 
revealing,  the  original  and  perfect  light. 
This  clause  depends  on  the  verb  came. — 
That  all  men  through  him  might  be- 
lieve. The  word  him  refers  to  John  ;  and 
the  belief  meant  is  belief  in  Christ,  the  true 
light.  (Calvin,  Bengel,  Liicke,  Olshausen, 
Tholuck,  Lange,  Luthardt,  Alford,  Meyer, 
De  Wette,  Godet,  Weiss,  Abbott,  Clark.) 
The  direct  object  of  John's  mission  was  to 
bear  witness  concerning  the  Word,  or  Light, 
who  is  the  Kevealer  of  the  Father;  and  the 
remoter  object  to  be  secured  by  this  witness- 
ing, was  belief  in  the  Word  made  flesh,  the 
Saviour  of  the  world.  "  The  person  of  John 
is  in  itself  of  no   importance,   because   it  is 


Ch.  I.] 


JOHN. 


63 


S  He  was  not  that  Light,  but  was  sent  to  bear  witness 
of  that  Light. 

9  «  T/in/  was  the  true  Light,  which  lighteth  every  man 
that  Cometh  into  the  world. 

10  He  was  in  the  world,  and  'the  world  was  made  by 
him,  and  the  world  knew  him  not. 


8  might  believe  through  him.    He  wa.s  not  the  light, 
but  cawe  that  he   might  bear  witness  of  the  light. 

9  "There  was  the  true  light,  I'lun  tk,-  li,,t,i  which  light- 
10  etii  "every  man,  ciimiiig  into  the  w<jrld.     He  was  in 

the  world,  and  the  world  was  made  through  him, 


a  ver.  4;  Isa.  49:  6;  1  Johu  2:  8.. ..6  ver.  3j  Heb.  1 :  2;  11 :  3. 1  Or,  The  true  light,  which  lighteth  every  man.  v,a»  coming. ...2  Or, 

every  man  at  he  cometh. 


human  ;  its  importance  lies  only  in  the  testi- 
mony it  has  to  give." — Luthardt. 

8.  He  was  not  that  (the)  Light,  but  was 
sent  to  bear  witness  of  that  Light.     The 

first  three  words  are  emphatic.  This  maj-  be 
inferred  from  their  position  in  the  Greek  sen- 
tence, and  from  the  pronoun  selected  by  the 
Evangelisi;  {i.  e.,  exelvoi).  After  the  conjunc- 
tion but  (oXAa),  .some  expositors  (Mej'er, 
Schaff)  would  supply  the  word  "came,"  to 
complete  the  sense ;  others  would  supply 
"was  sent,"  and  still  others  "was";  while 
yet  others  maintain  that  the  thought  of  the 
writer  is  fully  expressed.  The  third  of  these 
views  is  probablj'  correct.  The  form  of  ex- 
pression is  one  by  which  the  writer  hastens  to 
the  positive  and  principal  thought  contained 
in  the  second  clause,  carrj'ing  with  him  the 
idea  of  the  verb  "  was"  from  the  first.  Such 
elliptical  and  slightly  irregular  expressions 
are  very  forcible,  and  are  common  to  all  lan- 
guages. 

9.  That  was  the  true  Light,  etc.  The 
construction  and  interpretation  of  this  verse 
are  diflScult.  It  has  been  variously  trans- 
lated: (1)  "'There  was  the  true  light,  which 
lighteth  every  man  that  cotnes  into  the  world''' 
{Bible  Union);  (2)  ^'Present  was  the  true 
light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh 
into  the  world"  (Meyer);  (3)  "The  true 
light,  which  lighteneth  every  man,  came  into 
the  world"  (Alford);  (4)  "The  true  light 
which  lighteneth  every  m,an,  was  cotning  into 
the  world"  (Noyes,  Davidson,  Liicke);  (5) 
"  That  was  the  true  light  which  lighteth  every 
■man  (by)  coming  into  the  .world"  (Godet,  2d 
ed.).  The  third  and  fourth  versions  (Alford, 
Noyes)  may  be  regarded  as  virtually  one;  for 
Alford  interprets  the  words,  "came  into  the 
world,"  as  meaning,  "was  in  process  of  mani- 
festing himself."  That  is  to  say,  the  true 
Light  was  already  making  its  appearance 
when  John  was  testifying  of  it.  This  seems 
to  be  a  more  exact  translation  than  any  save 
the  first,  and  the  meaning  which  it  offers  is 
satisfactory. — The  Light  of  which  John  was 
to  bear  witness,  and  which  was  already  ap- 


pearing in  the  world,  is  characterized,  in  the 
first  place,  as  being  the  true  Light  (to  oA.j3ii'd»<, 
see  Trench's  "N.  T.  Synonyms,"  7th  ed.,  p. 
25  sq.),  that  is,  the  genuine,  original  Light, 
answering  to  the  perfect  idea  of  light,  and 
used  here  in  contrast  with  the  imperfect  and 
borrowed  light  of  John;  and  in  the  second 
place,  it  lighteth  every  man— an  expression 
which  has  been  variously  understood.  It 
cannot,  however,  mean  that  every  man  is,  in 
fact,  spiritually  enlightened  by  the  Word,  so 
that  he  has  a  true  knowledge  of  God;  for 
this  is  fjrbidden  by  the  immediate  context — 
unless  we  assume,  with  Bengel,  that  by 
"every  man"  is  here  meant  "every  one 
who  is  spiritually  enlightened,"  which  seems 
to  be  a  scarcely  ju.stifiable  restriction  of  the 
language.  But  it  may  signify  that  some 
knowledge  of  God  is  given  to  every  man 
by  the  "Word.  AVe  understand  it,  however, 
as  a  description  of  the  normal  relation  of  the 
Word  to  the  world  of  mankind,  as  an  affirm- 
ation that,  if  any  one  fails  of  true  and  saving 
knowledge,  it  is  because  he  closes  the  ej'e  of 
his  soul  to  it,  and  not  because  the  W"ord  has 
failed  to  offer  it  to  him. 

10.  He  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world 
Avas  made  by  him,  and  the  world  knew 
him  not.  Three  questions  have  been  raised 
concerning  this  verse,  viz.:  (1)  At  what 
point  does  the  writer  pass  from  the  neuter 
and  impersonal  idea  of  the  ninth  verse  to 
the  masculine  and  personal  of  the  eleventh, 
from  the  Light  to  the  Word?  (2)  To  what 
time  does  he  refer  in  the  several  clauses, 
especially  the  first  and  the  last?  (3)  What  is 
the  meaning  of  the  world  in  the  several 
clauses?  In  answer  to  the  first,  it  may  be 
said  that  though  the  Evangelist  used  a  term 
in  the  ninth  verse  which  is  neuter  in  form 
(to  0M5),  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  it  was 
used  by  him  in  an  impersonal  sense.  Indeed, 
when  saying  that  John  was  not  the  Light,  he 
must  have  been  thinking  of  One  who  was  the 
Light,  that  is,  of  the  Light  as  a  person  ;  and 
therefore  it  may  be  assumed,  that  as  soon  as 
the  gender  of  the  word  light  ceased  to  rule, 


64 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  I. 


11  "He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him 
not. 

12  But  'as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  be- 
lieve on  his  name : 


11  and  the  world  knew  him  not.    He  came  unto  ihis 
own,  and  they  that  were  his  own  received  him  not. 

12  But  as  many  as  received  Iiim,  to  them  gave  he  the 
right  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to  them  that 


a  Luke  19:  14;  Acts  3:  26;  13:  46 h  Isa.  56  :  5  ;  Eoui.  8:  15;  Gal.  3  :  26  ;  2  Pet.  1 :  4;  1  Johu  3  :  1. 1  Gr.  his  own  things. 


in  a  merely  formal  way,  the  gender  of  rela- 
tive words,  the  writer,  had  he  used  a  pronoun, 
would  have  employed  the  masculine  form. 
(Compare  14:  26;  15:  26;  16:  7-13.)  In  an- 
swer to  the  second:  At  what  time  does  the 
writer  mean  to  affirm  that  the  Light,  i.  e., 
the  Word,  was  in  the  world?  it  may  be  said: 
In  the  time  of  his  public  ministry,  when  he 
was  manifesting  himself  to  the  world,  and 
John  was  bearing  witness  of  him.  ^'^ He  was 
in  the  world — and  therefore  the  world  should 
have  known  him — a7id  the  world  was  made  by 
him — so  much  the  more  should  it  have  known 
him — and  yet  the  xoorld  knew  him  not^' 
(DeWette).  "The  world  (6  (cda/no?)  is  repeated 
three  times  with  tragical  emphasis,  the  noun 
instead  of  the  pronoun.  This  makes  the  con- 
trast between  what  should  have  been  and 
what  was  the  more  affecting."  —  Luthardt. 
In  answer  to  the  third  question:  What  is 
meant  bj'  the  world  in  the  several  clauses  ? 
we  remark,  that  in  the  last  clause  it  must 
mean  the  world  of  mankind,  or  the  world  as 
represented  by  mankind;  for  only  men  could 
know  the  "Word.  But  in  the  previous  clauses 
the  term  may  have  a  less  restricted  meaning. 
And  it  is  characteristic  of  John  to  use  words 
of  comprehensive  signification,  leaving  their 
exact  reference  to  be  inferred  from  the  con- 
text. He  teaches  much  with  but  few  words. 
11.  He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his 
own  received  him  not.  In  the  first  sen- 
tence of  this  verse,  the  words  rendered  his 
own  (tA  liia)  are  neuter,  and  serve  to  fix  the 
mind  on  the  Jewish  nation  as  the  Messiah's 
heritage  or  possession  ;  but  in  the  second  sen- 
tence, the  words  so  translated  (oi  ISioi)  are 
masculine,  and  serve  to  fix  the  mind  on  the 
same  people  as  persons  who  belong  to  the 
Messiah,  and  are  subjects  of  his  government, 
or  members  of  his  household.  The  simple 
idea  of  oionership  is  more  forcibly  expressed 
by  the  neuter  form ;  but  this  form  gives 
place  to  the  masculine,  because  on\y  persons 
can  receive  or  reject.  The  Messiah,  the 
Light  of  the  world,  was  rejected  bj'  his  own 
people,  the  members  of  his  own  family. 
Compare  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament 


in  Ex.  19:  5;  Deut.  7:6;  Psalm  135:  4; 
Isa.  31  :  9,  with  that  of  the  New  Testament  in 
1  Peter  2:9;  Matt.  8  :  12;  John  4  :  22;  Pvom. 
1  :  16.  "  In  the  negative  form  of  expression, 
verses  10,  11,  there  is  a  profoundly  elegiac 
and  sorrowful  tone."— iV/eyer.  The  beloved 
disciple  felt  a  holy  grief  at  the  rejection  of 
his  Lord.  Yet  while  the  people,  as  a  whole, 
rejected  Christ,  there  were  individuals  who 
believed  in  him,  and  the  Evangelist  now 
turns  to  the  manifestion  of  Christ  in  relation 
to  them.  He  has  spoken  of  unbelief,  and  he 
now  speaks  of  belief. 

12.  But  as  many  as  received  him,  to 
them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons 
of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on 
his  name.  Compare  the  Kevised  Version. 
Following  the  order  and  emphasis  of  the 
Greek  words,  the  verse  may  be  rendered: 
But  as  m,any  as  received  him,  he  gave  them 
right  (or  power)  to  be  children  of  God,  to 
them  who  believe  in  his  name.  Gave,  rather 
than  them,  is  emphatic  in  the  second  clause. 
This  verse,  in  connection  with  the  next,  taxes 
the  wisdom  of  an  interpreter  severely.  Yet 
one  thing  is  evident,  viz.,  that  the  first  and 
last  clauses  refer  to  the  same  class  of  persons, 
and  to  the  same  kind  of  action  ;  hence  the  re- 
ceiving was  effected  by  believing,  and  the 
last  clause  explains  the  first.  This  appears  to 
us  certain,  though  Weiss  decides  that  the  act 
of  receiving  Jesus,  as  the  true  Light,  pre- 
ceded belief  in  his  name.  Does,  then,  the 
second  clause  refer  to  regeneration?  so  that, 
according  to  John,  faith  precedes  and  condi- 
tions regeneration  ?  This  is  assumed  to  be 
his  teaching  by  Meyer,  De  Wette,  Godet, 
and  many  others.  But  the  objections  to  this 
assumption  are  very  grave,  (a)  The  next 
verse  appears  to  teach  that  those  who  believe 
in  the  name  of  Christ  have  been  begotten  of 
God.  (b)  The  same  thing  is  clearly  taught 
by  John  in  his  Fir.st  Epistle,  e.  g.,  5  :  1. 
(Compare  4:  7;  2:  29.)  (c)  Faith  in  Christ 
appears  to  be  as  truly  a  fruit  of  divine  grace 
as  any  other  Christian  act. 

If,  then,  we  reject  the  assumption  that 
faith  precedes  regeneration,  the  words  of  our 


Ch.  I.] 


JOHN. 


65 


13  «  Which  were  horn,  not  of  Mood,  nor  of  the  will  o?fi3  believe 
the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  m:in,  l)Ut  of  God. 

14  'Aiul  the  Word  =  was  made  ''flesh,  and  dwelt 
among  us,  (and  «  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  a*i  ni'ilie 
only  begotten  of  the  Father,) /full  of  grace  and  truth. 


his    name:     who    were    'born,   not  of 

•-'bloi.d,  nor  of  the  will  of  llie  flesh,  nor  of  the  will 

11  of  liian,  l)Ut  of  (idd.     ,\nd  ihe   Word  became  flesh, 

and  ''dwelt    aiuong    us   (and    we   beheld   liis   glory, 

glory  as  of  Hhe  only  begotten  from  the  Father), 


a  ch.3:  5;  James  1 :  18  ;  1  Pet.  1 :  23 b  Malt.  1 :  IB,  20;   Luke  I  :  31,  :«;  2:7;  1  Tim.  3:  16 e  Rom.  I  :  3' 

16,  17 e  Isa.  40:  a;  Matt.  17  :  2  i  oh.  2  :  11  ;    11  :  40:  2  Pel.  1 :  17.... /CI.  I  ;  19 ;  2:  3,  9. 1  Or,  begotten.'. 

nacted 4  Or,  an  only  hnjottcn/rom  a  father. 


Gal.  4:  4....dHch.2:  II.  14, 
.  .2  Gr.  bloode 3  Gr.  taber- 


second  ckuse  must  either  refer  to  what  Paul  that  they  all  deny  the  production  of  a  spir- 
calls  "adoption"  {vioeeaia),  or  mu.st  represent  |  itiial  life  by  natural  generation,  or,  in  other 
regeneration  as  due  to  a  gift  of  grace  from  \vord.s,  that  a  state  of  grace  is  ever  iniierited 
Christ.  In  the  former  case  the  word  trans-  '  fi-uiu  one's  parents  or  ancestors.  But  is  not 
lated  power  (cfouaia)  means  "  privilege,"  l  thi.s  fully  expressed  by  the  first  negation? 
"right,"  or  "title,"  and  the  word  translated  [  And  do  not  the  second  and  third  deny  that 
to    become    (yeMo-eai),    means   "to    be"— of   this  state   is  ever  originated  by  an    act  of 


course  with  an  implication  of  origin. 
Against  this  the  use  of  "children"  (Tcict-a), 
instead  of*'sons"  (vidi),  has  been  urged;  but 
without  the  fullest  right,  for  John  nowhere 
uses  the  latter  term  to  denote  sons  by  adop- 
tion, and  Paul's  style  is  not  decisive  as  to  the 
use  of  words  by  John.  (Compare  John  11  : 
52;  1  John  3:1.)  But  why  not  accept  tl)i' 
second  view,  accqrding  to  which  the  word 
rendered  power  means  the  moral  ability  of 
men,  under  the  renewing  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  to  receive  Christ  and  become  thereby 
children  of  God?  In  fiivor  of  this  interpre- 
tation may  be  alleged  the  position  of  gave, 
which  makes  this  verb,  instead  of  the  pro- 
noun them,  the  emphatic  word  of  the  clause. 
Had  John  meant  to  emphasize  the  human 
act  alone  as  decisive,  he  would  probably 
have  placed  the  word  them  before  the  word 
gave,  i.  e..  to  them,  because  they  received 
him  when  others  did  not.  Nor  is  this  inter- 
pretation inconsistent  with  the  use  of  a  pre- 
sent participle  in  the  last  clause,  while  an 
aorist  verb  is  used  in  the  first.  For  this 
change  may  have  been  due  to  the  interven- 
ing thought.  The  meaning  would  then  be 
this:  "Many  did  not  receive  him  ;  but  some 
did;  and,  as  to  all  who  received  him,  he 
gave  them  grace  by  which  they  were  enabled 
to  do  this,  and  so  to  become  God's  children." 
This  emphasizing  of  the  grace  of  God  in 
Christ  perfectly  accords  with  the  general 
tone  of  the  prologue. 

13.  Which  (or  toho)  were  born  {begotten) 
not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh, 
nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God.  The 
main  purpose  of  the  Evangelist  in  this  verse  is 
to  deny  that  regeneration  owes  its  origin  to 
man,  and  to  affirm  that  it  is  effected  by  the 
power  of  God.  Most  interjireters  supjjose  that 
the  three   negations  are  essentially    one,   in 


human  will  or  choice?  This  is  certainly  the 
most  obvious  meaning  of  the  words.  Yet,  if 
this  be  the  meaning,  why,  it  may  be  asked,  is 
will  of  the  flesh  distinguished  from  will  of 
man?  Possibly  because  the  writer  would 
first  reject  a  notion  which  is  very  plainly 
absurd  (of  blood),  then  one  that  is  appar- 
ently less  absurd  (of  the  will  of  the  flesh), 
and,  finally,  one  that  appears  to  many  per- 
sons even  probable  (of  the  will  of  man). 
Thus  faith  in  Christ  is  not  transmitted 
from  parents  to  children  in  the  elements 
of  physical  life  ("bloods"  for  blood).  Nor 
is  this  faith  originated  by  an  act  of  will 
springing  from  a  nature  ruled  by  flesh  and 
sense.  Nor  yet  is  it  a  product  of  man's  will, 
although  will  of  man  signifies  all  that  is 
highest  and  noblest  in  merely  human  power. 
The  origin  of  this  new  life  of  faith  is  divine; 
it  is  implanted  in  the  soul  by  God.  If  this 
interpretation  is  correct,  the  word  man  is 
here  used  (and  Liicke  maintains  this  view)  as 
the  antithesis  of  God,  and  not  of  woman, 
though  the  term  here  emploj'ed  is  generally 
used  in  the  latter  sense.  At  all  events,  the 
last  clause  distinctly  aflSrms  that  believers 
have  a  life  which  owes  its  origin  to  God — that 
the  new  birth  is  effected  by  God,  and  that  all 
believers  in  the  name  of  Christ  have  experi- 
enced it.  But  it  does  not  say  that  the  grace 
of  God  for  regeneration  is  resisted  equally  by 
those  who  are,  and  b}-  those  who  are  not,  re- 
newed. The  positive,  eflScient  agency  is  di- 
vine; but  whether  this  divine  agency  is  con- 
ditioned on  an3'  particular  state  of  the  human 
soul  or  not,  the  Evangelist  does  not  explain. 

14-18.  Incarxatiox  of  the  Word  by 
WHICH  God  w^as  Most  Clearly  Kevealed 
to  Men. 

14.  And  the  word  was  made  [became) 
flesh.     This  sentence  Is  ai  once  simple  and 


66 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  L 


sublime,  unsurpassed  by  any  in  the  sacred 
record.  With  it  should  be  compared  1  John 
4:  2;  2  John  7;  ITim.  3:  16;  Gal.  4:  4;  Kom. 
1:  3;  8:  3;  Phil.  2:  7;  Col.  2:  9;  John  8:  58; 
17:5;  3:  11-13.  A  careful  study  of  these 
passages  will  lead  one  to  hesitate  long  before 
concluding  with  Gess,  Godet,  and  others,  that 
the  verb  became  (eyerero)  includes  a  sur- 
render of  his  divine  consciousness,  or  mode 
of  existence,  by  the  Word,  and  an  entrance 
upon  a  simple  human  mode  of  existence. 
For  this  term  does  not  assert  that  the  Divine 
Word  v;as  converted  into  flesh,  or  human 
nature.  It  only  declares  that  he  became  one 
of  whom  true  humanity  could  be  affirmed. 
If  the  order  of  the  Greek  original  marl<s  any 
word  as  emphatic,  it  is  the  word  flesh.  And 
this  word  is  generally  conceded  to  be  a  des- 
ignation of  human  nature,  taken  from  its 
lower  and  visible  side.  The  meaning  would 
have  been  nearly  the  same  if  John  had  said  : 
The  Word  becntne  man.  Yet  the  word  flesh 
serves  to  bring  forward  a  little  more  dis- 
tinctly the  fact  that  he  was  visible,  and  had  a 
human  body,  as  well  as  a  rational  soul.  (Com- 
pare John  17  :  2.)  If  John  had  meant  to  saj' 
that  the  Word  took  to  himself  a  human  body 
simply,  he  would  have  said  that  he  came  in  a 
body,  or  at  least  "in  flesh."  The  expression 
Avhich  he  has  employed  naturally  signifies 
that  the  AVord,  though  divine,  became  hu- 
man. Bej-ond  this,  his  language  scarcely 
warrants  our  going.  "In  Jesus  Christ,"'  says 
Meyer,  was  "the  absolute  synthesis  of  the 
divine  and  the  human."  Meyer's  exposition 
of  this  verse  is,  in  most  respects,  admirable, 
while  that  of  Godet,  though  extremely  in- 
teresting and  positive,  is  scarceh- justified  by 
the  language  of  the  Evangelist.  Ami  dwelt 
among  us— full  of  grace  and  truth.  The 
verb  translated  dAvelt  (eo-K^i-wo-ec)  signifies,  lit- 
erally, "pitched  his  tent,"  "tented,"  "taber- 
nacled"; and  "this  word  was  chosen,"  Meyer 
holds,  "for  the  purpose  of  fixing  attention 
on  the  appearing  of  the  incarnate  W^ord, 
whose  human  nature  became  his  holy  tent 
(2 Pet.  1:13)  in  fulfillment  of  God's  promise  that 
he  would  dwell  among  his  people.  Ex.  25:  8; 
29:45;  Levit.26:ll;  Joel3:  21 ;  Ezek.  37:  27; 
Hag.  2:  9,  cf  Sir.  24:  8;  Kev.  21 :  3.  The  con- 
text, and  we  beheld  his  glory,  etc.,  au- 
thorizes this  assumption."  A  similar  thought 
underlies  the  statement  of  John  in  2:  21: 
"But  he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his  body." 


There  is  nothing  in  the  context  favorable  to 
the  view  that  this  verb,  "tented,"  was  chosen 
with  reference  to  the  brevity  of  Christ's  so- 
journ upon  earth.  The  pronoun  us  means 
the  disciples  of  Christ,  of  whom  the  writer 
was  one.  The  last  words  of  the  verse,  full 
of  grace  and  truth,  are  descriptive  of  the 
Word  as  he  dwelt  among  his  people.  Ke- 
demption  was  in  him,  and  -was  revealed  by 
him.  AVhat  he  was  he  manifested,  and  he 
was  the  Saviour  of  sinners.  The  word  grace 
answers  to  the  word  life  above,  and  the  word 
truth  to  the  word  light.  Life  and  light  are 
equivalent  to  grace  and  truth.  Several  ex- 
cellent expositors  (Meyer,  Lange,  Alford, 
Schaff")  regard  these  words — full  of  grace 
and  truth — as  a  final  exclamation,  not  re- 
ferable to  the  second  clause,  or  as  belonging, 
by  an  irregular  construction,  with  his  (aixoO) 
of  the  next  preceding  clause.  But  it  is  safer  to 
connect  tliem  witli  the  Word,  the  subject  of 
the  verb  dwelt.  AVe  now  return  to  the  inter- 
vening clause,  which  may  be  literally  ren- 
dered :  And  we  beheld  his  glory,  a  glory 
as  of  an  only  begotten  from  with  the  Father. 
The  word  beheld  means  to  look  at,  or  con- 
template with  admiration.  "It  needed  be- 
lief to  see  the  Son  of  God  in  Jesus,  but  that 
belief  could  see  even  in  the  incarnate  One 
the  fullness  of  the  divine  glory"  (Luthardt, 
freely).  This  glory  was  revealed  to  believers 
by  the  whole  life,  bearing,  teaching,  work, 
of  the  incarnate  AVord.  And  it  was  such  a 
glory  as  answered  to  the  true  idea  of  an  Only 
Begotten  from  tlie  Fatlier.  The  preposition 
(irapd)  before  Father  means  "from  with,"  or 
"from  the  presence  of,'-"  and  it  is  plain  that 
the  peculiarity'  of  Christ's  Sonship  depends 
on  the  divine  nature  of  the  AVord,  since  he 
could  be  "from  with  God"  by  virtue  of  his 
higher  nature  only.  But  it  maj'  be  doubted 
whether  this  language  proves  the  eternal  Son- 
ship  of  the  AVord;  though  it  clearly  proves 
that  the  Sonship  of  Christ  was,  in  a  true  sense, 
natural  as  well  as  unique.  A  different  prepo- 
sition would  probablj'  have  been  selected  by 
John,  if  he  had  intended  to  speak  of  the 
pre-incarnate  AA'ord  as  the  Son  of  the  Father. 
AVhether  then  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal 
generation  of  the  AVord  from  the  Father  is 
Biblical  or  not,  it  is  not  directly  taught  in 
this  passage.  Only  this  is  said,  that  the  glory 
of  Jesus  was  such  as  could  belong  to  none 
but  an   only  begotten    Son,    who,   as  to  his 


Ch.  I.] 


JOHN. 


67 


lo  "John  bare  witness  of  hiiu.aiKl  cried,  siiying,  This  I  15  full  of  f;race  and  truth.     John  l)earcth  witness  of 
was  heot  whom  I  spake,  Mle  tliat  coiiielli  after  me  is  him,  and  crieth,  saving,  '  This  was  he   of  wliom   I 

preferred  before  me  ;  '  for  he  was  before  me.  |        said,  lie  that  comelii  after  me  is  bicome  l)efore  lue- 


aver.  32;  ch.  3:32;  5:  33.... 4  Matt.  3:  11;  Mark  1  :  7  ;  l.uke3:   16;  ver.  27:  30 ;  ch.  3  :  31....C  ch.  3:  58;    Col.  1:  17 I  Some  ancient 

auihoi'itU-8  rend  (t/tio  wa»  he  that  said). 


higher  nature,  had  come  from  with  the 
Fi^tlier.  That  Christ  was  this  gracious  and 
gUirious  Being  is  now  re-asserted,  by  appeal- 
ing to  the  testimony  of  John  the  Baptist,  and 
to  tiie  grace  which  the  first  disciples  had  re- 
ceived from  him. 

15.  John  bare  witness  of  him,  and 
cried,  saying  (Literally:  John  bearcth  wit- 
ness of  him,  and  hath  cried,  saying).  Tlie 
tense  of  tlic  former  verb  (heareth)  may  be 
explained  by  supposing  that  the  Evangelist 
merely  thought  of  John's  testimony  as  al- 
ways pertinent,  valid,  and  decisive,  or  by 
supposing  that  it  was  vividly  present  to  him, 
and  sounding  as  it  were  in  his  ears.  Tlie 
hitter  hypothesis  is  perhaps  preferable  to  the 
former;  for  the  testimony  of  the  Baptist,  re- 
ceived in  faith,  had  proved  the  turning  point 
in  the  writer's  life,  and  would  therefore  be 
likely  to  remain  in  his  soul  as  fresh  and 
powerful  as  when  it  was  first  heard.  If  the 
former  explanation  of  this  verb  were  adopted, 
it  would  still  be  necessary  to  suppose  the 
writer  a  disciple  of  John,  as  well  as  of  Christ, 
in  order  to  account  for  the  graphic  descrip- 
tion and  singular  prominence  which  he  has 
given  to  the  testimony  of  the  Baptist.  An 
unknown  Christian  of  the  second  century 
could  not  have  written  the  remainder  of  this 
chapter. — The  verb  translated  cried,  or  hath 
cried,  is  in  the  perfect  tense,  and  represents 
the  act  as  sounding  over  from  the  past  into 
the  present.  Mej^er  says  that  the  perfect 
is  here  used  as  a  present,  but  it  is  not  really 
necessary  to  assume  this ;  for  from  the  testify- 
ing, as  a  present  reality,  the  mind  of  the  Evan- 
gelist might  easily'  pass  to  the  vocal  utterance 
as  bringing  that  testimony  from  the  past  to  the 
present,  and  continuing  it  still. — This  was 
he  of  whom  I  spake,  He  that  cometh  af- 
ter me  is  preferred  \has  come  to  be)  before 
me ;  for  he  was  before  me.  The  tense  of 
the  verb  was,  in  the  first  clause,  may  be  ac- 
counted for  by  supposing  that  John  refers  to 
Jesus  on  some  other  past  occasion,  e.  g.,  "The 
teacher,  whom  I  saw  again  yesterdaj'^,  Avas 
he  of  whom  I  spake,"  etc.  Weiss  thinks 
that  John  the  Baptist  is  conceived  of  hy  the 
Evangelist  as  still  bearing  witness,  and  there- 


fore as  now  saying,  This  was  he  of  whom  I 
spake.  His  view  is  po.ssibly  correct;  for  the 
perfect,  hath  cried,  includes  the  present  as 
well  as  the  past.  AVeiss  holds  that  this  is  an 
instance,  though  the  only  one  in  the  New 
Testament,  of  a  perfect  tense  used  for  a  pres- 
ent; but  we  do  not  see  any  solid  ground  for 
such  an  opinion.'  The  clause,  has  come  to  be 
before  me,  may  refer  either  to  time  or  to  rank. 
If  it  refers  to  time,  the  Baptist  meant  to  say 
that  the  coming  of  Jesus  into  the  world  pre- 
ceded his  own;  or,  in  other  words,  that  Jesus 
was  the  One  who  had  appeared  to  the  fathers 
as  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  the  Angel  of  the 
Covenant,  etc.  But  by  the  tense  of  the  verb 
employed,  has  come  to  be  (yeYOj-ei-),  the  coming 
of  Jesus  in  flesh  would,  in  that  case,  be  repre- 
sented as  a  continuance  of  his  coming  in  a 
very  different  way,  which  is  scarcely  natural. 
The  view  that  this  clause  refers  to  the  superior 
dignity  or  rank  obtained  by  Christ,  is  there- 
fore better.  "  He  that  is  coming  after  me  has 
taken  his  place  before  me,  i.  e.,  in  authority 
and  rank — a  position  to  which  he  is  entitled, 
because  he  was  before  me,  or  first  in  relation 
to  me."  This  precedence  in  existence  (last 
clause)  might  surely  be  appealed  to  as  a  suf- 
ficient ground  for  precedence  in  dignity,  for 
it  implied  the  superhuman  nature  of  Christ. 
(Notice,  too,  that  the  verb  here  is  in  the  im- 


1  ["  This  was  he  of  whom  I  said"  (oc  elnov),  js  sup- 
ported by  all  known  documents  except  X  (first  cor- 
rector) B  C,  which  read,  "This  was  he  who  said" 
(o  hnuiv) ;  and  the  original  .«cribe  of  X  gave,  "This 
was  he  that  cometh  after  me,  who  is  become  before 
me,"  showing  confusion  and  uncertainty  as  to  the 
text.  Now  an.y  reader  will  notice  that  John  the 
Baptist  has  not  been  recorded  as  previously  saying 
what  in  the  common  te.Kt  he  here  tleelares  himself 
to  have  said.  Hence  an  apparent  difficulty,  which 
the  reading  of  X  B  C  tends  to  remove.  If  only  X 
and  C  bad  given  tliis,  Westcott  and  Hort  would  have 
promptly  called  it  an  "Alexandrian"  correction,  a 
well  meant  attempt  to  remove  a  difficulty.  'I'heir 
jreneral  po.sition  that  B  added  to  other  e:irly  authori- 
ties gives  a  "neutral"  form  of  text,  free  from  ".Alex- 
andrian "  and  "  Western  "  corrections,  cannot,  in  our 
opinion,  be  maintained  without  allowing  somewhat 
numerous  exceptions.  Compare  on  .3:  13;  7:8,  .39; 
18  :  1.  There  can  be  little  hesitation  in  here  rejecting 
the  reading  6  einiii'  as  a  correction.  B.] 


68 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  I. 


16  And  of  his  "fulness  have  all  we  received,  and  grace  I  16  for  he  was  'before  me.    For  of  his  fulness  we  all 
for  grace.  I  17  received,   and  grace  for  grace.      For  the  law  was 

17  For  *  the  law  was  given  by  Moses,  6((<  "grace  and  given    through     Moses;     grace    and    truth     came 
''truth  caiue  by  Jesus  Christ.                                                  I 


oh.  3:  34;  Eph.  1 :  6,  7,  8  ;  Col.  1 :  19  ;  2:9,  10 ft  Ex.  20:  1,  etc. ;  Deut.  4:  44;  '  :  1 ;  .33:  4 c 

14  :  6. 1  Gr.JirBt  in  regard  Vo  me. 


.  3  :  24  ;  5 ;  21 ;  6 :  14 d  ch.  8 :  32 ; 


perfect  tense,  V.)  Moreover,  when  this  proc- 
lamation was  made  by  the  Baptist  (see  ver. 
30),  Jesus  harl  already  begun  to  take  his  true 
position  as  compared  with  John.  The  tense 
of  the  verb  {yiyovtv).,  in  the  second  clause  of 
John's  testimony,  is  therefore  fully  accounted 
for  by  this  interpretation. 

16.  And  of  his  fulness  have  all  Ave  re- 
ceived, and  grace  for  grace.  Yielding  to 
the  force  of  authority,^  we  must  substitute 
for,  in  place  of  and,  at  the  beginning  of 
this  verse.  Yet  we  cannot  attribute  these 
words  to  John  the  Baptist.  Lil<e  the  words 
we  beheld,  etc.,  of  verge  14,  they  evidently 
belong  to  the  Evangelist,  and  the  all  Ave 
refers  to  himself  and  the  whole  body  of  primi- 
tive disciples.  The  time  indicated  by  the 
verb  (lit.,  received)  is  that  in  which  they  first 
believed  in  Jesu.s.  And  the  expression,  his  j 
fulness,  shows  that  this  verse  was  meant  to 
be  a  confirmation  of  the  last  statement  in 
verse  fourteenth.  AVhether  it  is  to  be  directly 
connected  with  that  verse,  however,  or  with 
the  fifteenth,  is  doubtful.  If,  with  the  latter, 
the  course  of  thought  is  somewhat  obscure, 
but  as  follows:  "We  beheld  him  dwelling 
among  us,  full  of  grace  and  truth."  For  tlie 
witness  of  John  the  Baptist  is  to  this  effect, 
that  Jesus  had  justly  taken  precedence  of 
himself,  because  he  was  in  existence  first, 
even  in  eternity.  And  that  he  was  thus  pre- 
existent  and  superior  to  John,  and  therefore 
full  of  grace  and  truth,  is  also  certain,  "be- 
cause we  all  received  grace  out  of  his  fullness 
at  the  time  of  our  espousals  to  him."     The 

1  [This  verse  ought  to  begin  with  on,  "  because  "  or 
"for,"  which  is  supported  by  X  B  C  (first  hand) 
D  L  X, :«,  some  copies  of  the  Old  Latin,  the  Mem- 
phitic,  Armenian,  and  iEthiopie,  and  numerous  pa- 
-  trisiic  quotations.  Notice  that  the  uncials  include 
three  groups,  X  B,  C  L,  D.  We  can  see  ho\f  this 
reading  may  have  been  changed  to  xat,  "and" 
(which  has  inferior  outward  eviiience),  by  persons 
who  could  not  see  any  such  relation  as  "  because" 
between  verse  15  and  verse  IC,  and  who  did  not 
perceive  that  verse  15  is  parenthetical  or  digressive, 
and  in  verse  16  the  Evangelist  gives  the  "because" 
for  verse  14.  There  is  even  a  verbal  connection, 
"full  .  .  .  fulness,"  "grace  .  .  .  grace."  B.] 


word  received  has  no  expressed  object,  but  its 
implied  object  is  a  portion  of  that  with  which 
Christ  was  filled,  namely,  "grace  and  truth." 
The  manner  in  which  this  was  received  is  de- 
scribed by  the  words  and  grace  for  grace. 
That  is,  "  new  grace  constantly  took  the  place 
of  that  which  had  been  received  before." 
— Meyer.  "A  grace  received  becomes  our 
title  to  receive  a  new  grace."  —  Godet.  "Every 
new  wave  taking  the  place  of,  and  over- 
whelming, though  not  superseding  or  de- 
stroying, the  other." — Schnff.  Not  only  the 
freeness  of  divine  grace  is  suggested  by  this 
expression,  but  also  its  adaptation  to  every 
state  and  want  of  the  renewed  man,  as  he 
passes  on  from  childhood  to  maturitj'  in  the 
divine  life.  It  will  be  observed  that  these 
additional  words,  and  grace  for  grace,  ap- 
pear to  glance  at  the  whole  course  of  Chris- 
tian life,  while  the  verb  received  fixes  the 
mind  on  a  particular  time  or  act. 

17.  For  the  law  was  given  by  Moses, 
I  but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ. 

j  This  verse  assigns  a  reason  (For)  why  Chris- 

I  tians  could  and  did  receive  from  his  fullness 

i  grace   for    grace,    namely,    because    through 

j  him  the  grace  and  the  truth  of  salvation,  or 

grace  and   truth   in   their  ideal   sense,   were 

I  brought  into    existence   {eyevero) ;    and  while 

j  assigning  this  reason,   it  magnifies  his  work 

I  by  contrasting  it  with  that  of  Moses.     The 

]  law  was,  at  best,  only  the  shadow  of  good 

j  things  to  come.     It  manifested  the  justice  of 

I  God  and  the  sinfulness  of  man  with    great 

clearness,    but    it    only    intimated,    through 

types,  the  reality  and  the  method  of  divine 

forgiveness.     These    were    disclosed    by    the 

mediation  of  Christ,  even  as  they  depended 

on   that   mediation.     Hence,   it  is  said    that 

grace  and  truth  came,  i.  e.,  came  into  being, 

or  view,  through  Jesus  Christ.     The  law  was 

only    given   (e5o0r))  or    transmitted    through 

Moses ;  for  it  was  in  substance  the  eternal 

rule  of  right,  existing  in  the  mind  of  God; 

but  saving  grace  and  truth  were  brought  into 

being  by   the   work   of  Christ.     He   himself 

was    the    perfect    revelation    of  the    Divine 

Will.     In  him  was  "the  redemption,"   and 


Ch.  I.]  JOHN. 

18  «No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time;  ''the  only  I  18  through  Jesus  Christ.    No  man  hai 
bfKOtteu  S(ju,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  tlie  Father,  he  any  time;    "the  onlv  IieL'otten  Son 


69 


hath  declared  h 


hath  seen  God  at 
,  who   is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him. 


o  Ex.  33:20;  Deut.  4 :  12;  Matt.  11:27;  Luke  10:  22;  ch.6:46;    1  Tim.  1:   17;  6:  16;  1  John  4:  12.  20....6  ver.  U;  ch.  3 :  16,  18;  IJi.hn 
4  :  'J. 1  Many  very  aiicieut  autborities  read,  God  otUu  beaotten. 


by  him  was  it  made  known  to  men.  Here, 
first  in  the  prologue,  do  we  meet  the  full 
name  of  the  Saviour,  who  has  been  desig- 
nated hitherto  as  the  Word,  the  Light,  and, 
by  implication,  the  Only  Begotten  from  with 
the  Father. 

18.  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time;  the  only  begotten  Son,  which  is 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Father— he  hath 
declared  him.  By  its  position  in  the  origi- 
nal—  God — hath  no  man  ever  seen — the  word 
God  is  made  emphatic;  and,  according  to 
this  last  and  crowning  declaration  of  the  pro- 
logue, God  the  Father  has  never  been  seen 
by  mortal  ej'e,  but  was  made  known  by 
Jesus  Christ,  the  only  begotten  Son,  who 
enjoys  perfect  and  uninterrupted  communion 
with  him.  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  days  of  his 
flesh,  interpreted  and  revealed  the  Father  to 
men;  this  he  was  able  to  do,  because  he  is 
the  only  begotten  Son,  having  the  same 
nature  with  the  Father,  and  because  he  is 
ever  at  home  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
loving  him  and  knowing  all  his  heart.' 


1  [It  Is  quite  difficult  to  decide  whether  the  true 
reading  here  is  (1)  o  \i.ovoye.v-t\%  uios,  "the  only-begot- 
ten Son,"  or  (2)  \iiOvoyivy\%  Seo?  (without  article)  "one 
wlio  is  only-begotten  God."  Tlie  evidence  of  manu- 
scripts, versions,  anil  Fathers,  is  veiy  strong  on  both 
sides;  and  that  of  the  Fathers  is  curiously  compli- 
cated with  questions  as  to  the  early  creeds,  and  the 
current  phraseology  of  the  early  centuries.  Fach 
reading  may  claim  some  tianscriptional.  and  somt* 
intrinsic  probability.  Thequestion  d^es  not  materi- 
ally atfect  the  general  te:iehing  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  to  the  Son  of  God,  and  so  we  can  hardly  sup- 
pose changes  on  that  account.  Athanasius  seems  to 
have  had  only  the  former  reading,  while  Arins,  and 
some  of  his  followers,  quote  the  latter,  explaining  it 
in  accordance  with  their  theory. 

(1)  6  /uoi'oyei'r)?  vids  is  supported  by  A  C  (third 
hand)  X  T  A  A  11,  nine  other  uncials,  nearly  all 
cursives,  old  Latin,  Vulgate,  old  Syriac  (Curetonian), 
Harklean  (text)  and  Jerusalem  Syriac,  Armenian, 
and  some  manuscripts  of  the  ^Ethiopic.  It  is  found 
in  Irenceus  (Latin  translation).  Hippolytus ;  Euse- 
Viius  several  times  fonce  giving  the  alternatve  read- 
ing "the  only-begotten  Son,  or  (one  who  is)  only-be- 
gotten God,"  as  either  sufficed  for  his  argument; 
.■Vthanasius  repeatedly  ;  and  often  in  Basil,  Chrysos- 
tum,  and  many  other  Greek  Fathers;  also  in  Tertul- 


Meyer  supposes  that  the  expression  which 
is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  refers  to 
Jesus  Chri.st  after  his  glorification,  but  does 
not  cover  the  period  of  his  humiliation  on 
earth.  But,  if  that  were  the  case,  I  cannot 
see  why  the  clause  was  in.serted  here.  It 
would  have  .seemed  far  more  natural  to  have 
referred  to  his  pre-incarnate  fellowship  with 
the  Father,  hue  most  natural  of  all  to  have 
referred  to  his  intimacy  with  the  Father 
while  he  was  declaring  him.  The  participle 
(wi-)  translated  is,  seems  to  be  used  to  express 
what  is  permanently  true  of  Christ,  and  true 
in  such  a  sense  as  to  make  his  account  of  the 
Father  worthy  of  all  acceptation.  Lucke 
saj's  that  the  ''timeless  present  participle  is 
here  used,  like  the  finite  present  in  1  John 
3:3,  7,  to  express  an  inherent,  permanent 
relation  of  the  only  begotten  Son  to  the 
Father"  (I.  363).  It  may  al.so  be  remarked 
that  there  is  no  expressed  object  of  the  word 
"declared"  (efij-yijo-oTo),  he  expounded,  ex- 
j}lnined,  taught  [i.  e.,  ca,  qiice  ad  deum  spec- 
tant) ;   or,    what  he  knew  by  being  in  the 


lian,  Hilary,  often  (in  a  work  on  the  Trinity),  and 
other  Latin  Fathers. 

(2)  ii.Qvoy(vy\%  Seds  is  supported  by  X  B  C  (first  hand) 
L..'i3  (which  very  often  concurs  with  this  group  of 
uncials).  Memphitic,  Peshito,  and  margin  of  Hark- 
lean  Syriac,  ^thiopic  fsome  Mss ).  It  is  found  in 
IreiiBBus  (Latin  translation,  next  page  to  the  quota- 
tion of  the  other  rea<iing),  is  s;tid  to  have  been  used 
by  the  Valentinian  Gnostics,  is  given  once  in  Clem- 
ent of  Ale.x.,  and  several  times  in  Origen,  repeatedly 
in  Didvmns  (on  the  Trinity),  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
and  Epiphanius  and  Cyril  of  .\lex.  (in  commentary 
on  John),  and  in  various  other  Greek  Fathers. 

Carefully  to  be  distinguished  from  quotations  of  this 
passage  is  the  frequent  use  of  the  expression  iiovoyevrif 
ved?  without  any  apparent  reference  to  this  con- 
nection) tjy  many  Fathers,  including  Athanasius 
(who  quotes  only  the  other  text),  Basil,  Gregory  of 
Nyssa.  and  Gregory 'Nazianzen,  Cyril  of  Alex.,  and 
the  Latin  Fathers  Hilary  (who  quotes  only  the  other) 
and  FiilL'entius;  also  by  Arius  (in  Epiphanius)  and 
some  obscure  Latin  Arian  writers.  This  same  ex- 
pression is  found  in  certain  early  creeds  (see  Hort, 
"Two  Dissertations."  Cambridge,  1877). 

Internal  evidence  as  to  this  passage  is  not  decisive, 
but  seems  somewhat  more  favor;ible  to  9ed«.  The 
unique   and    strange-looking    novoyivin  S«6s    would 


70 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  I. 


19  And  this  is  "  the  record  of  John,  when  the  Jews  I  19  And  this  is  the  witness  of  John,  when  the  Jews 
sent  priests  and  Levites  from  Jerusalem  to  ask  him,  sent  unto  him  from  Jerusalem  priests  and  Levlies 
Who  art  thou?  I 


bosom  of  the  Father;  or,  perhaps,  the  Father, 
as  he  could  do  this  by  being  in  the  Fathers 
bosom. 

19-28.  John's  Testimony  TO  THE  Depu- 
tation FROM  Jerusalem. 

Having  prepared  the  minds  of  his  readers 
bj'  this  marvelous  introduction  to  appreciate 
the  events  and  discourses  which  he  is  about  to 
relate,  the  Evangelist,  whose  object  did  not 
require  him  to  rehearse  again  the  well-known 
story  of  the  birth,  the  early  history,  and  the 
opening  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  or  of 
Jesus,  the  son  of  Mary,  begins  his  narrative 
by  describing  an  interview  between  the  Bap- 
tist, and  a  deputation  of  priests  and  Levites 
from  Jerusalem.  This  interview  took  place 
on  the  east  side  of  the  Jordan,  in  Bethabara 
(see  ver.  28),  more  than  forty  days  after  the 
baptism  of  Christ.  Hence,  according  to  the 
best  conjecture,  John  had  been  preaching  and 
baptizing  between  seven  and  eight  months, 
and  many  of  the  people  were  beginning  to 
speak  of  him  as  in  all  probability,  the  expected 
Messiah.  It  was  time,  therefore,  for  the  rulers 
to  ascertain  his  claims,  and  prepare  them- 
selves to  oppose  or  to  support  them. 

19.  And  this  is  the  record  (better,  wit- 


ness) of  John.  A  slight  but  natural  empha- 
sis is  thrown  upon  the  predicate  this  bj-  giving 
it  the  first  place  in  the  sentence.  The  writer 
calls  attention  thereby  to  the  character  of  the 
testimony  which  is  to  be  recited.  "The  wit- 
ness which  John  bore  on  a  particular  occasion 
is  this  (observe  its  character)  which  I  now  re- 
peat, and  it  was  given":  When  the  Jews 
sent  priests  and  Levites  from  Jerusa- 
lem. By  the  Jews  must  be  understood  in 
this  place,  the  Jewish  authorities,  probably 
the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin.  This  was  a 
formal  deputation,  and  was  naturally  com- 
posed of  priests  and  Levites,  as  men  who  were 
occupied  with  religious  services,  and  familiar 
with  the  prophetic  Scriptures.  They  were 
sent  from  Jerusalem,  the  capital  of  the  na- 
tion, by  tlie  chiefs  of  the  Jewish  people,  to 
ascertain  the  precise  claims  of  the  Baptist,  as 
appears  from  the  next  clause;  for  they  were 
j  sent,  it  is  said,  to  ask  him,  Who  art  thou  ?' 
(For  the  use  of  l^a,  and  the  subjunctive  in  the 
sense  of  the  infinitive,  see  Winer  §  45,  9,  and 
Buttmann  ^  139,  4.)  The  question  thus  pro- 
posed was  perfectly  general,  but  in  view  of 
the  circumstances,  was  equivalent  to  the  defi- 
nite   inquiry,  Art  thou  the  Messiah  ?      And 


more  readily  be  changed  into  the  familiar  o 
fiovo-yti'jjs  vids  of  .3:  Ifi,  18;  1  John  4:  9.  Still  it  may 
he  answered  that  the  erpression  iiovoyevti^  Seds  was 
familiar  in  various  quarters.  It  is  more  likely 
that  the  creeds  and  theologians  borrowed  this  ex- 
pression from  the  Gospel,  than  that  it  crept  into  the 
Gospel  from  their  ussge.  Dr.  E.  Abbot  replies  (Ril>- 
liotheca  Sa-'-ra,  1801.  and  Unitarian  Review,  187.">).  that 
the  favorite  phrase  S-ed?  Adyos  was  not  borrowed  from 
Scripture,  but  made  V>y  combining  two  words  in 
John  1:1;  and  so  novoyevji^  Sed«  might  have  been 
made  by  combination  fiotn  1 :  1  and  14.  But  ihe  two 
cases  present  the  important  difference  that  S'ebs  Adyos 
lias  not  crept  into  the  test.  And  Dr.  H<>rt  points  out 
that  if  the  use  of  fioi-oyevJi?  ^ed?  in  theologians  and 
creeds  brought  it  into  our  passage,  then  there  must 
have  been  such  use  early  in  the  second  century,  to 
account  for  its  appearance  in  the  various  documents 
which  contain  it.  The  possibility  that  -«ds  mny 
have  been  changed  to  vids  because  of  the  closely 
following  Trarpds,  is  met  by  the  possibility  that  a 
scribe  retained  the  impression  of  the  foregoing  S^fov, 
and  thus  unconsciously  mistook  the  contracted  form 
of  vids  for  the  other.    Many  have  argued  that  "only 


begotten  God"  is  intrin'^ieally  improbable,  because 
unique  and  foreign  to  New  Testament  phraseology. 
But  Hort  justly  replies,  ^"  Two  Disseitations,")  that 
the  entire  prologue  to  John  (1 :  1-18)  is  thoroughly 
unique,  and  he  shows  that  "only  begotten  God" 
at  the  close,  would  well  sum  tip  the  the  thought  of 
the  whole  passage.  Thus,  transcriptional  probability 
is  rather  in  favor  of  iiovoyevrii:  Seds,  ami  intrinsic 
probability  is  not  clearly  oppo.'sed  to  it.  And  as  the 
remarkable  group  of  documents  which  contain  it, 
are  so  commonly  shown  by  clear,  internal  evidence 
to  contain  the  true  text,  it  seems  right  to  regard 
novyev'ri^  Sed«  as  more  probably  the  correct  reading. 
There  is,  of  late  years,  as  critics  become  used  to  the 
strange  expression,  an  increasing  readiness  to  aceopt 
this  proliable  conclusion.  But  the  complex  difficul- 
ties of  the  problem  are  very  serious,  and  one  can 
hardly  speak  with  great  eonflclence.  In  text-criti- 
cism, as  in  exegesis,  we  must  not  be  surpii-ed  if 
some  questions  remain  unsettled.  It  should  be  care- 
fully observed  that  ''only-begotten"  is  here  without 
an  article,  as  in  ver.  14.  Even  "  God  only-begotten" 
{marijin  of  Revised  Version)  is  too  definite  an  ex- 
pression. B.] 


Ch.  I.] 


JOHN. 


71 


20  And  "  he  confessed,  and  denied  not ;  but  confessed, 
I  am  not  the  C'liiist. 

21  An'  tliey  iiskcd  him,  What  then  ?  Art  thou  « Elias  ? 
And  he  saith,  1  am  not.  Art  thou  "  that  Prophet '!  And 
he  answered,  No. 

22  Then  said  they  unto  him,  Who  art  thou?  that  we 
may  give  an  answer  ti  them  that  sent  us.  What  sayest 
thou  of  thyself? 

23  <i  He  said,  I  aiu  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wil- 
derness, Malie  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  «said 
tlie  prophet  Esaias. 


20  to  ask  him.  Who  art  thou?  And  he  confessed,  and 
denied  not;  and  he  confessed,  1  am  not  thi;  (  hrisl. 

21  And  they  asked  him,  What  then?  Art  tht.ii  Klijah:' 
And  he  saith,  I   am    not.     Art  thou   tlie   iirophut? 

22  And  he  answered.  No.  They  said  Iherelore  unto 
him,  Who  art  thou?  that  we  may  give  an  answer 
to  them  that  sent  us.     What  sayest  tliou  of  thv.self  ? 

23  He  said,  I  am  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  w"il(ler- 
nes.s,  Make  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  said 


a  Luke  3:  15;  ch.  3:  28;  Acts  13:  25.... i  Miil.  4:5;  Matt.  17:  10 cDout.  18:  15, 18 d  Matt.  3:3;  Mark  1:3;  Luke  3  :  4;  cli.  3:  28.... 

e  Isa.  40 :  3. 


the  Baptist  responded  to  its  import,  rather 
than  to  its  form.  Meyer  supposes  that  this 
import  is  slightly  indicated  by  the  emphatic 
position  of  the  pronoun  thou  (2u  ris  elj;  but 
this  i.s  perha)).'?  doubtful. 

2U.  And  he  confessed,  and  denied  not; 
but  (rather,  and  he)  confessed,  I  am  not 
the  Christ.  Two  points  deserve  speciiil  at- 
tention. 1.  The  msinner  in  which  the  Evan- 
gelist introduces  this  testimony  of  the  Baptist. 
For  by  his  double  statement,  positive  and 
negative,  and  by  his  deliberate  repetition 
of  tlie  positive  statement,  he  confessed, 
he  clearly  reveals  the  extraordinary  impres- 
sion which  this  tinswer  and  testimony  had 
made  on  his  own  mind.  The  language  is 
evidently  that  of  a  hearer  and  believer;  per- 
haps, too,  of  one  who  was  at  the  time  half 
expecting  a  different  answer  from  the  BaptLst. 
2.  The  position  of  the  pronoun  I  in  the  an- 
swer of  the  Baptist  renders  it  emphatic,  and 
gives  to  that  answer  the  meaning,  "I  myself 
am  not  the  Christ"  (thus  suggesting  that 
there  was  another  among  them  who  was  the 
Christ).  This  meaning  arises  chiefly  from 
the  order  of  words  established  by  the  highest 
authorities,  and  adopted  by  Lachniiinn,  Tis- 
chendorf,  and  Tregelles,  though  the  use  of 
the  pronoun  at  all,  renders  it  somewhat  em- 
phatic. 

21.  But  the  deputation  was  not  satisfied  ; 
it  would  hiive  a  more  definite  answer  from 
John.  Hence  the  next  question:  What  then? 
Art  thou  Elias?  For  it  was  expected,  ac- 
cording to  Mai.  4:  5,  that  Elijah  would  re- 
appear on  earth  and  introduce  the  Messiah  ; 
while  it  is  evident  that  the  deputation  sup- 
posed the  mission  of  the  Baptist  to  be  con- 
nected in  some  way  with  the  Messiah.  Hence 
they  say:  "If  this  is  so,  if  thou  art  not  the 
Christ,  how  does  the  case  stand?  Art  thou 
Elijah?"  They  probably  suppose  that  be 
will  claim  to  be  at  least  Elijah.  But  no. — He 
saith,  I  am  not.     Meaning,  I  am  not  Elijah 


the  Tishbite,  to  whom  you  refer.  This  an- 
swer of  the  Baptist  need  not  be  pronounced 
inconsistent  with  the  words  of  the  angel  to 
Zachariah  his  father  (Luke i:  i;),  or  with  those 
of  Christ  (Matt,  u:  14;  17:  11,12);  for  it  was  doubt- 
less  a  true  answer  to  the  precise  thought  as 
well  as  language  of  his  interrogators.  For 
some  reason  he  deemed  it  unnecessary  to  in- 
terpret the  words  of  Malachi,  which  signified 
that  he  was  an  Elijah  in  "spirit  and  power," 
though  not  identical  with  him  in  person. 
The  deputies,  therefore,  continue  their  scru- 
tiny: Art  thou  that  prophet?  (Literally, 
The  prophet,  art  thou?)  And  he  answered. 
No.  It  is  presumable  that  the  questioners 
meant  by  the  prophet,  the  unnamed  projjhet 
foretold  by  Moses  in  Deut.  18:  15.  whom  they 
did  not  identify  with  the  promised  Messiah, 
while  John  briefly  answered,  No,  because  he 
knew  that  the  prediction  of  Mo.ses  referred  to 
the  Messiah,  or  at  least  did  not  refer  to  him- 
self. Ob.serve  the  life-like  style  of  the  dia- 
logue, and  the  curt,  decisive  manner  of  the 
Baptist.  It  was  a  dialogue  well-remembered 
b3'  the  writer — not  a  colloquy  invented  by  a 
literar3^  forger  of  the  second  century. 

23.  Then  said  they  unto  him.  Who  art 
thou?  that  we  may  give  an  answer  to 
them  that  sent  us.  This  question  could  not 
be  answered  by  a  single  negative,  and  there- 
fore John  gives  an  account  of  himself  in  the 
language  of  Scripture,  but  in  such  a  way  a.s 
to  keep  his  own  personality  in  the  background 
while  he  exalted  Christ.  "  Notice — they  ever 
ask  him  about  his  person;  he  ever  refers 
them  to  his  office.  He  is  no  one — a  voice 
merely;  it  is  the  work  of  God,  the  testimony 
of  Christ,  which  is  everything.  So  the  form- 
alist ever  in  the  church  asks.  Who  is  he?  while 
the  witness  for  Christ  only  exalts,  only  cares, 
for  Christ's  work." — Alford. 

23.  He  said,  I  am  thd  (rather  n)  voice 
of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness.  Make 
straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  said  the 


72 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  I. 


24  And  they  which  were  sent  were  of  the  Pharisees.    |  24  Isaiah  the  prophet.    lAnd  they  had  been  sent  from 


25  And  they  asked  him  and  said  unto  him  Why  bap- 
tizest  thou  tlieii,  if  thou  be  not  that  Clirist,  nor  Eiias, 
neither  tliat  Prophet? 

20  John  answered  them,  saying,  "I  baptize  with 
water:  *  but  there  standeth  one  among  you,  whom  ye 
know  not; 

27  "  He  it  is,  who  coming  after  me  is  preferred  before 
me,  whose  shoe's  latohet  I  am  not  worthy  to  unloose. 


25  the  Pharisees.     And  they  asked  him,  and  said  unto 
him.  Why  then  baptizest  thou,  if  thou  art  not  the 

26  Christ,  neither  Elijah,  neither  the  prophet?     John 
answered  them,  saying,  I  baptize -in   water:  in  the 

27  midst  of  you  staudeth  one  whom  ye  know  not,  even 
he  that  cometh  after  me,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoe 


1  Matt.  3  :  11 h  Mai.  3  :  1 c  ver.  15,  30;  Acts  19:  ■». 1  Or,  And  certain  had  been  sent  from  among  the  Pharisees 2  Or,  imth. 


prophet  £saias.  The  second  clause  of  the 
quotation  from  Isa.  40:  3  is  not  literal,  but  it 
gives  the  substance  of  two  sentences  of  the 
original,  which  reads:  "Prepare  ye  the  way 
of  the  Lord,  make  straight  in  the  desert  a 
highway  for  our  God."  Matthew  (3:3)  ap- 
plies the  same  passage  to  John  the  Baptist. 
This  answer  to  the  deputation  is  in  perfect 
keeping  with  the  Evangelist's  own  language 
in  verses  7  and  8,  above.  The  greatness  of 
John  was  in  his  being  a  voice,  a  herald,  a 
witness,  announcing  Christ  and  directing 
men  to  him.  He  was  less  than  his  office, 
Avhile  Jesus  was  greater  than  his  office;  he 
was  great  because  of  his  office,  while  the 
office  of  Christ  was  supremely  great  because 
it  was  filled  by  him. 

24.  And  they  which  were  sent  were  of 
the  Pharisees.  The  Revised  Version,  fol- 
lowing the  oldest  reading,  translates:  And 
they  had  been  sent  from  the  Pharisees.  This 
remark  is  inserted  to  prepare  the  way  for 
what  follows;  for  the  Pharisees,  who  at- 
tached the  highest  importance  to  all  cere- 
monial observances,  were  just  the  people  to 
call  in  question  the  authority  of  one  who 
should  introduce  a  new  religious  rite.  And 
this  John  had  done. 

25.  And  they  asked  him,  and  said  unto 
him.  Why  baptizest  thou  then,  if  thou  be 
not  that  (the)  Christ,  nor  Elias,  neither 
that  (the)  prophet?  It  appears  from  this, 
that  the  Pharisees  looked  upon  baptism  as 
a  rite  which  appertained  to  the  Messiah's 
reign,  and  which  could  only  be  introduced 
by  the  Messiah  himself,  by  Elijah  his  fore- 
runner, or  by  the  prophet  like  unto  Moses. 
But  they  did  not  interpret  Isa.  40:  3  as  re- 
ferring to  any  one  of  these.  Hence,  they 
called  in  question  the  right  of  John  to 
baptize;  and  he,  taking  little  pains  to  vin- 
dicate his  right,  pointed  them  to  his  Master. 

26.  27.   I  baptize  with  (in)   water,  etc 
The  Revised  Version  reads:    In  the  7nidst  of 
you   standeth   one   whom  ye   know  not,   even 
he    that    cometh    after    ■)ne,    the    latchet    of 


lohose  shoe  I  am  not  worthy  to  unloose. 
This,  according  to  the  best  editors,  Lach- 
mann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and 
Hort,  is  the  true  te.xt  of  the  verse.  And  if  so, 
the  response  of  John  to  his  inquisitors  was 
brief,  even  to  obscurity ;.  yet  it  was  probably 
understood  by  tlie  deputation.  Their  question 
assumed  that  none  but  the  Messiah,  or  one 
closely  and  officially'  ccMinected  with  him — 
as  Elijah  or  "the  prophet" — could  have 
authority  to  baptize;  and  the  answer  of 
John,  though  obscure,  is  exactly  to  the 
point,  and  may  be  paraphrased  thus:  "I 
mj'self  do  indeed  baptize  in  water:  I  myself 
am  administering  this  new  and  significant 
rite  by  which  those  who  are  entering  u))on 
a  new  religious  life  solemnly'  testify'  their  re- 
jientance  and  readiness  to  welcome  tlie  Com- 
ing One;  and  my  authority  for  doing  this  is 
the  fact  that  he  who  cometh  after  me,  whose 
way  I  am  calling  on  the  people  to  prejjare, 
but  whom  you  yourselves  do  not  know 
or  recognize,  is  even  now  standing  among 
you;  and  so  great  and  wonderful  is  he,  that 
I,  though  sent  to  announce  him  and  to  pre- 
pare the  people  for  him  by  this  divinely  ap- 
pointed and  significant  rite,  feel  myself  un- 
worthy to  render  him  the  humblest  service." 
Meyer  says  that,  after  I  in  the  first  clause, 
the  emphasis  falls  on  in  water;  but  there  is 
nothing  in  the  Greek  text  to  warrant  this. 
For  thp  order  of  the  words  is  the  natural  and 
logical  order,  and  the  only  emphatic  part  is 
the  pronoun  I.  Perhaps  there  is  a  definite 
feeling  of  rightful  authority  implied  in  the 
accentuated  pronoun:  "This  is  my  mission, 
tny  work  as  the  herald  of  the  far  greater  One 
who  is  even  now  standing  among  you"  ;  yet 
the  pronoun  may  be  expressed  for  the  sake 
only  of  a  more  marked  antithesis  between 
the  speaker  and  the  One  described  as  he  that 
com,eth  after  me.  "When  speaking  to  the 
more  docile,  but  less  instructed  people,  John 
had  expresslj-  contrasted  the  bajitism  in  water, 
which  he  administered,  with  the  baptism  in 
the  Holy  Spirit,  which  the  One  coming  after 


Ch.  L] 


JOHN. 


73 


28  These  thiiif^s  were  done  "in   Bethabara  beyond 
Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing. 


28  I  am  not  worthy  to  unloose.  These  thines  wore 
done  in  'Uetliauy  beyond  Jordan,  wliere  Jidin  was 
baptizing. 


I  Juiiges  7  :  24  ;  ch.  10:  40. 1  Maiij  aticii-nt  auihoritiea  read,  Bethabarah,  some  Betharabah. 


him  would  administer;  (See  Miitt.  3:  11; 
Mark  1:  7,  8;  Luke  3:  16);  but  in  re.sponding 
to  the  more  learned  and  captious  Pharisees 
from  Jerusalem,  a  briefer  statement  was 
enough. 

28.  Th-^se  things  were  done  in  Beth- 
abara (or  Bethany)  beyond  Jordan,  where 
John  was  baptizing.  The  importance 
which  the  Evangelist  attaches  to  this  inter- 
view, on  account  of  the  testimony  which  tiie 
Baptist  gave  in  it  respecting  the  Christ,  leads 
him  to  mention  the  place  where  the  deputa- 
tion examined  the  prophet  and  harbinger  of 
the  Lord.  Bethany,  instead  of  Bethabara,  is 
the  reading  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  (e.  g., 
J*  A  B  C),  and  is  adopted  by  the  critical  edi- 
tors. Origen  says:  "We  are  not  ignorant 
that  almost  all  the  copies  have,  These  things 
took  place  in  Bethany;  and  this,  it  seems, 
also  forinerly  to  have  been  ;  therefore  we  have 
read  Bethany  in  Herakleon.  But  we  were 
persuaded  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  read 
Bethany,  but  Bethabara,  when  we  were  in 
those  places  for  the  purpose  of  tracing  by 
sight  the  footsteps  of  Jesus,  and  of  his  disci- 
ples, and  of  the  prophets.  For  Betliany,  as 
the  Evangelist  himself  saj's,  the  native  place 
of  Lazarus  and  Martha,  and  Mary,  was  fifteen 
furlongs  distant  from  Jerusalem,  while  the 
river  Jordan  is  one  hundred  and  eighty  fur- 
longs beyond  this.  Neither  is  there  a  place  of 
the  same  name  as  Bethany  about  the  Jordan. 
But  they  say  that  there  is  pointed  out  on  the 
bank  of  the  Jordan  the  Bethabara,  where 
they  relate  that  John  baptized"  (VI.  24). 
It  seems  necessary  in  accordance  with  the  tes- 
timony, though  against  the  opinion  of  Origen, 
to  follow  the  best  authorized  reading,  and  to 
suppose  that  the  place  over  the  Jordan  called 
Bethany  had  disappeared,  or  changed  its 
name  before  the  time  of  Origen.  Somewhere 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Jabbok,  as  it 
enters  the  Jordan,  there  was  a  Bethabara  in 
the  days  of  Gideon  (Judg.  7:24),  and  at  that 
place,  as  well  as  at  Bethany,  John  may  have 
baptized.  This  would  account  for  the  tra- 
dition which  Origen  found.  Caspari  argues 
ingeniously  that  Bethany  is  represented  by 
Tell  Anihje,  on  the  east  side  of  the  Jordan, 


a  few  miles  north  of  Lake  Genncsjireth ; 
for,  as  he  maintains  that  the  word  Tell  has 
taken  the  place  of  Beth  as  a  prefix  to  many 
names  of  places  in  Palestine,  he  considers 
Tell  Anihje  equivalent  to  Beth  Anihje,  that 
is,  Bethany.  (See  "Chronological  and  Geo- 
graphical Intro,  to  the  Life  of  Christ,"  pp. 
92,  93).  "Von  Ranmer  also  argues  that  there 
was  a  Judah  beyond  Jordan,  northeast  of  the 
Sea  of  Galilee,  called  Golan,  Jaulan,  or  Gau- 
lonitis.  If  so,  a  comparison  of  Matt.  19:  1 
with  John  10:  40,  might  lead  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  Bethany  was  in  that  province.  Yet 
it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  John  first  bap- 
tized in  Bethany  beyond  the  Jordan,  and  it 
seems  quite  improbable  that  Matt.  3:  5,  B, 
and  Mark  1 :  6,  refer  to  any  place  north  of 
the  Sea  of  Galilee.  Some  members  of  the 
English  Company  sent  out  to  explore  the 
Holy  Land,  locate  Bethany  on  the  east  of  the 
Jordan,  not  far  south  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 
But  its  exact  topography  is  still  unknown. 
Mr.  Condor,  of  the  Royal  Engineers,  speaks 
of  a  ford  of  the  Jordan  named  'Abarah,  "just 
above  the  place  where  the  JalQd  River,  flow- 
ing down  the  valley  Jezreel  by  Beisan,  de- 
bouches into  Jordan.  .  .  .  We  have  collected 
the  names  of  over  forty  fords,  and  no  other  is 
called  'Abarah;  nor  does  the  word  occur 
again  in  all  the  9,000  names  collected  by  the 
survey  party.  .  .  .  The  ford 'Abarah  is  about 
twenty-two  miles  from  Kefr  Kenna,  and  no 
place  can  be  found,  on  the  Jordan,  much 
nearer  or  more  easily  accessible  to  the  neigh, 
borhood  of  Cana.  .  .  .  Bathania,  meaning 
'.soft  soil,'  was  the  well-known  form  used  in 
the  time  of  Christ,  of  the  old  name  Ba.shan, 
which  district  was  in  Per:i?a,  or  the  country 
beyond  Jordan.  ...  If  Bethabara  be  a  true 
reading,  the  place  should  thus,  most  probably, 
be  sought  in  Bathania,  and  the  ford  should, 
therefore,  lead  over  to  Bashan.  This,  again, 
strengthens  the  case  for  the  'Ab§,rah  ford, 
which  is  near  the  hills  of  Bashan,  whereas  the 
Jericho  fords  are  far  away,  leading  over 
towards  Gilead  and  Moab "  (Vol.  II.  pp. 
64  sq.) 

29-34.  John's  Testimony  to  His  Own 
Disciples  tuk  Next  Day. 


74 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  I. 


29  The  next  day  John  seeth  Jesus  coming  unto  him, 
and  saith,  Behold  «  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  '  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world ! 


29      On  the  morrow  he  seeth  Jefusconii 
and  saith,  Behold,  the  Lamb  of  Uod, 


ng  unto  him, 
that  Haketh 


o  Ex.  12:  3;  Isa.  53  :  7  ;  ver.  36;  Acts  8:  32;  1  Pet.  1  :  19;  Rev.  5.  6.  etc b  Is.i.  53  :  11 ;  1  Cor.  15:  3;  Oal.  1:4;  Heb.  1: 

1  Pet.  2:  24;  3:  IS;  1  Joliu  2:2;  3:5;  4:  10;  Rev.  1 :  5. 1  Or,  bearetlt  the  sin. 


29.  The  next  day  John  (or  he,  meaning 
Jolin),    seeth    Jesus    coming    unto    him. 

Jesus  now  ai)pears  for  the  first  time  in  the 
proper  narrative  of  tlie  Evangelist.  All  tlie 
interesting  circumstances  of  his  birth,  his  in- 
fancy, his  childhood,  his  visit  to  the  Temple 
at  the  age  of  twelve,  hi&  baptism,  and  his 
temptation  in  the  wilderness,  are  passed  by  in 
silence,  and  he, is  brought  forward  at  the  very 
time  when,  probably,  the  writer  first  saw  him, 
and  began  to  think  of  him  as  the  hope  of 
Israel.  The  purpose  for  which  Jesus  was 
coming  to  John  is  not  named,  and  it  can  only 
be  conjectured  from  what  follows.  He  was 
about  to  enter  upon  his  public  ministry,  to 
call  about  him  disciples,  and  to  prepare  a 
select  company  of  them  to  be  witnesses  of  his 
miracles  and  resurrection:  where  could  he 
expect  to  find  men  so  well  prepared  to  receive 
him  as  were  some  of  those  who  had  been 
taught  by  John  the  Baptist?  by  one  who  was 
"more  than  a  prophet,"  because  he  was  a 
messenger  sent  to  prepare  the  way  of  the 
Lord? 

Wiien  now  the  Baptist  saw  Jesus  ap- 
proaching, he  said  to  the  group  of  serious 
men  about  him :  Behold  the  Lamb  of 
God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
Avorld  !  For  he  recognized  Jesus,  and  knew 
that  he  was  the  Son  of  God  (ver.  32-34).  But 
why  did  he  call  Jesus  the  Lamb  of  God? 
"Without  doubt  because  he  saw  in  him  "the 
servant  of  Jehovah,"  described  in  the  fiftj'- 
third  chapter  of  Isaiah,  who  was  "led  as  a 
lamb  to  the  slaughter."  The  best  interpre- 
ters unite  in  this  answer — e.  g.,  Liicke, 
Meyer,  Godet,  Lange,  Alford,  and  many 
others.  The  principal  reasons  for  this  answer 
are  found  in  the  use  of  the  definite  article 
before  the  word  lamb  (6  a^ivot),  and  in  the 
meaning  of  the  next  clause.  It  is  indeed 
possible  that,  by  directing  attention  to  Jesus 
as  the  Lamb  of  God,  John  meant  to  affirm 
that  in  him  was  to  be  fulfilled,  in  a  perfect 
manner,  the  whole  idea  and  ofiice  of  sacrifice 
by  blood.  Yet,  if  this  was  his  meaning,  it  is 
not  very  obvious  why  he  made  choice  of 
"  the  lamb  "  to  represent  all  the  animals  that 
were  oflTered  in  Ssicrifice ;  for  some  of  the  most 


important  sacrifices  of  the  Mosaic  Economy 
were  made  with  other  animals.  But  in  the 
fifty-third  of  Isaiah,  "the  servant  of  Jeho- 
vah" is  represented  as  "a  lamb,"  and  was 
believed  by  many,  if  not  by  all  of  the  pious 
Israelites  of  that  time,  to  be  the  Messiah. 
That  the  Messiah  is  there  depicted  as  one 
who  "is  brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter," 
as  one  who  bore  up  the  sins  of  many  upon 
the  altar  of  sacrifice,  as  one  who  "  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions,"  and 
"bruised  for  our  iniquities,"  is  reason 
enough  why  the  Baptist  should  point  him 
out  as  the  Lamb  of  God.  The  next  clause 
also  favors  this  interpretation,  though  it  is 
properly  translated,  which  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world.  For  it  has  been  well 
said:  "How  does  Christ  take  away  sin? 
Not,  as  we  are  often  told,  b\'  simply  remov- 
ing it  from  the  offender,  and  putting  it  out  of 
sight.  ...  A  careful  examination  of  the 
word  (aipui),  meaning,  to  take  away,  will 
show  that  it  permits  one  to  take  an  object 
away  only  by  taking  it  upon  himself.  .  .  . 
Christ  took  away  our  sins,  therefore,  Dy 
taking  them  upon  himself.  .  .  .  We 
may  then  say,  that  while  we  are  to  translate 
by  "take  away,"  and  while  the  idea  of  de- 
portation is  in  the  foreground  of  the  picture, 
there  is  in  the  background  the  idea  of  taking 
up  sin  as  a  load  and  bearing  it  to  sacrifice" 
(Bib.  Sac,  Vol.  xxxii.,  pp.  48,  49).  Some 
interpreters  have  thought  it  improbable  that 
John  the  Baptist  knew  as  much  res|)ecting 
the  work  of  Christ  as  this  language  suggests, 
and  have,  therefore,  called  in  question  the 
accuracy  of  the  Evangelist's  report.  But,  in 
rejily  to  this,  it  may  be  reniiirked,  that  the 
Bai)tist  was  not  as  a  prophet  inferior  to 
Isaiah,  that  he  had  the  predictions  of  Isaiah 
in  his  hands,  that  he  was  the  harbinger  of 
I  Christ,  enlightened  beyond  others  in  respect 
to  him,  and  that  he  may  have  seen  in  the 
I  baptism  of  Jesus  a  type  of  his  death  for 
I  sinners.  There  is,  therefore,  no  good  reason 
for  supposing  that  he  could  not  have  ut- 
I  tered  the  words  here  attributed  to  him, 
j  meaning  by  them  all  that  has  been  ex- 
1  plained  above. 


Ch.  L] 


JOHN. 


75 


30  "This  is  he  of  whom  I  said,  After  me  conieth  a 
man  which  is  iirclerred  before  me  ;  for  he  was  before 
me. 

31  And  I  knew  him  not:  but  that  he  should  be  made 
manifest  to  Israel,  '•therelore  am  I  come  baptiisiug  with 
water. 

3J  =  And  John  bare  record,  saying,  I  saw  the  Spirit 


30  away  the  sin  of  the  world!  This  is  he  of  whom  I 
said.  After  me  couieth  a  man  who  is  become  before 

31  me:  for  lie  was 'before  mc  And  I  knew  him  not  ; 
but  that  he  sliould  be  made  manifest  to  Israel,  for 

:i2  this  cause  came  I  baptizing  -in  water.  And  .lohii 
bare  witness,  saying,  I  have  beheld  the  Spirit  de- 
scending as  a  dove  out  of  heaven ;  and   it  alMjde 


a  ver.  15  :  27 6  Mai.  :) :  1 ;  Mait.  3:6;  Luke  1 :  17,  76,  77:  .t :  3.  4 c  Matt.  3:  16;  Mark  1:  10;  Luke  3:  22;  ch.  &:  32.- 

regard  of  me 2  Or,  with. 


-IGr.^riliit 


30.  This  is  he  of  whom  I  said.  After 
me  cometh  a  man  which  is  preferred  be- 
fore me  ;  for  he  was  before  me.  The  in- 
terpretation of  this  btnguage,  which  was  given 
at  verse  15,  need  not  be  repeated.  But  it  is 
worthy  of  notice  that  the  first  clause  there 
had  was,  while  the  first  clause  here  has  is. 
We  are  unable  to  account  for  this  variation, 
if  both  passages  refer  to  the  same  occasion  and 
testimony,  (unless  we  adopt  Weiss's  explana- 
tion of  Avas,  in  ver.  15).  But  there  is  no 
necessity  for  supposing  this.  In  the  case 
here  related,  John  maj'  have  been  speaking 
of  Jesus  with  reference  to  his  present  move- 
ments, while  in  that,  he  may  have  been 
speaking  of  him  with  reference  to  some  past 
action  in  which  he  had  been  concerned.  The 
probability  of  this  explanation  is  increased,  if 
Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  and  Tregelles,  are 
correct  in  substituting/or — in  behalf  of—{vn4p) 
for  of,  concerning,  (fepO,  before  the  pronoun 
whom,  thus:  This  is  he  m  behalf  of  whom 
I  said.  The  manuscript  evidence  for  the 
two  prepositions  is  about  equal,  but  a  change 
from  of  (nepi)  to  for  {vrtep)  would  be  less  likely 
to  occur,  than  a  change  from  for  to  of.  The 
more  difficult  reading  is  therefore  likely  to  be 
correct;  and  John  must  be  supposed  to  have 
referred,  in  this  instance,  to  his  testimony 
as  giver  in  behalf  of  Christ. 

31.  And  I  knew  him  not.  Some  exposi- 
tors find  evidence  in  this  statement  that  the 
Evangelist  was  ignorant  of  the  facts  recorded 
by  Lukt  and  Matthew  in  respect  to  the  kin- 
ship and  acquaintance  of  Elisabeth  and  Mary 
(Lukei),  and  also  of  the  reluctance  of  John  to 
baptize  Jesus  (M.itt.  3:  ii).  But  &  falsariu/t  of 
the  second  century  would  have  been  likely  to 
know  the  contents  of  the  first  and  third  Gos- 
pels, and  not  likely  to  write  anything  palpa- 
blj'  inconsistent  with  their  accounts.  There 
is,  however,  no  sufficient  ground  for  the 
as.sertion,  that  Jesus  and  John  must  have 
been  personally  acquainted.  For,  from  his 
childhood,  John  had  lived  a  Nazarite,  mostly 
in  the  desert,  while  Jesus  had  lived,  with  his 


mother  and  her  other  children,  in  Nazareth. 
Still  further,  the  knowledge  here  disclaimed 
by  John  may  have  been  the  certain  knowl- 
edge that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  which  was 
to  be  given  by  a  sign  from  heaven;  and  if  so, 
he  may  have  been  acquainted  with  Jesus,  and 
may  have  expected  that  he  m'lght  prove  to  be 
the  Messiah.  This  expectation  would  also 
account  for  his  language  to  Jesus,  when  the 
latter  applied  to  him  for  baptism.  Besides, 
John  required  of  those  whom  he  baptized  ii- 
confession  of  sin,  and  the  unrecorded  response 
of  Jesus  to  such  a  requirement  may  have  led, 
by  its  profound  and  holy  character,  to  the 
Baptist's  exclamation:  "I  have  need  to  bo 
baptized  of  thee:  and  comest  thou  tome?" 
(Matt.  3:  u). — But  that  he  should  be  made 
manifest  to  Israel,  therefore  am  I  come 
baptizing  with  {in)  water.  While  John 
did  not  know  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  until  the 
hour  of  his  baptism,  he  did  know  that  his 
own  work  of  baptizing  in  water  was  ordained 
for  the  purpose,  among  other.s,  of  manifesting 
the  Messiah  to  Israel.  It  was  deemed  proper, 
by  the  wisdom  of  God,  that  .Jesus  be  an- 
nounced to  the  people,  and  identified  as  the 
Christ,  by  a  great  prophet,  entrusted  with  the 
function  of  introducing  a  new  religious  ordi- 
nance and  era.  The  order  of  the  words  in  the 
last  clause  makes  in  vmter  emphatic,  and  sug- 
gests that  John  had  in  mind,  as  a  contnist, 
Christ's  baptizing  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  Ob- 
serve, also,  that  the  order  of  the  la.st  two 
clauses  gives  special  prominence  to  the  mani- 
festation of  Christ  to  the  people  as  a  leading 
object  of  John's  baptism.  We  have  omitted 
the  article  before  water  in  agreement  with  a 
majority  of  the  early  copies,  though  there  is 
considerable  force  in  Mej'er's  argument  that 
a  transcriber,  with  verses  26  and  B3,  whore 
the  article  is  not  used  before  him,  would  be 
more  likely  to  omit  it  here  if  it  was  in  the 
original  text,  than  to  insert  it  if  it  was  not  in 
the  text.  Lachmann,  Tischendorf  Tregelles, 
with  Westcott  and  Hort,  unitein  omitting  it. 
32.  And  John  bare  record  (or  witness) 


76 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  I. 


descending  from  heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon 
liiiu. 

;«  And  I  knew  him  not:  but  he  that  sent  nie  to  bap- 
tize with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me,  Upon  wliom 
thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending,  and  remaining  on 
hiiu,  «the  same  is  he  whicli  baptizelh  with  the  Holy 
Ghost. 


33  upon  him.  And  I  knew  him  not  ;  but  he  tliat  sent 
me  to  baptize  i  in  water,  lie  said  unto  me.  Upon 
whomsoever  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  deseending, 
and  abiding  upon  him,  the  same  is  he  that  bap- 


a  Matt.  3:  11;  Act-s  1:5;  2:4;  10:  44;  19:  6. 1  Or, 


saying,  I  saw  (rather,  /  have  beheld)  the 
Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a 
dove,  ami  it  abode  upon  him.  By  saying, 
''  I  have  beheld,''  instead  of  ''I  beheld,''  John 
affirms  that  he  is  still  vividly  conscious  of  the 
sight.  Tiie  vLsion  was  not  transitory  in  its 
effect  upon  his  soul.  What  he  saw  as  a  sym- 
bol of  the  Spirit  had  a  dove-like  shape,  though 
the  significance  of  this  is  nowhere  explained. 
In  view  of  it  Alford  says,  that  "the  Spirit 
manifested  in  our  Lird  was  gentle  and 
benign."  Lange  remarks  that  "no  one  virtue 
of  the  dove"  is  meant;  "but  her  virtues;  .  . 
.  .  hence  purity,  loveliness,  gentleness,  friend- 
liness to  men,  and  vital  warmth."  But  most 
expositors,  influenced  by  the  words  of  Christ, 
recorded  in  Matt.  10:  16,  suppose  that  the 
dove  is  a  symbol  of  puritj'  and  innocence. 
The  precise  meaning  of  the  last  clause  is  not 
easily  given  by  a  translation.  For  {ini)  upon, 
followed  by  the  accusative,  signifies  motion 
towards,  or  down  upon ;  and  the  symbol 
which  John  saw,  represented  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  having  floated  swiftly  down  from  the 
opened  heaven,  and  as  about  to  rest,  or,  per- 
haps, as  already  resting,  on  the  head  of  Jesus. 

33.  And  I  (or  /  myself)  knew  him  not ; 
but  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  (or 
in)  water,  the  same  (or  he)  said  unto  me  : 
Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  de- 
scending, and  remaining  on  him,  the 
same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  (in)  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  note  of  Godet  on  this  pas- 
sage is  very  satisfactory.  "Not  only  has  a 
sign  been  announced  to  him  (ver.  si),  and  he 
had  seen  a  sign  (ver.  32),  but  that  sign  was  pre- 
cisely the  one  announced.  Everything  like 
human  caprice  is,  therefore,  excluded  from  the 
interpretation  of  the  sign  which  he  gives.  .  . 
The  expression,  he  that  sent  me,  has  in  it 
something  solemn  and  mysterious;  it  evi- 
dently means  God  himself,  who  spoke  to  him 
in  the  wilderness,  andgsive  him  his  commis- 
sion. .  .  The  act  of  baptizing  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,  is  named  as  the  essential  characteristic 
of  the  Messiah." 

But  what  is  meant  by  baptizeth  with  {in) 


the  Holy  Spirit  ?  In  answering  this  ques- 
tion we  must  consider  the  special  connection 
of  this  baptism  with  Christ,  the  natural  im- 
port of  the  expression,  the  instances  of  this 
baptism  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  the  references  to  the  same  thing  in  other 
language. 

It  is  plain  that  John  thought  of  baptism  in 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  very  important  and  char- 
acteristic part  of  Christ's  work.  Perhaps  he 
referred  to  it  all  the  more  frequently  because 
of  the  resemblance  which  he  perceived  be- 
tween his  own  work  and  this  part  of  the 
Messiah's  work.  Christ  alone  was  to  intro- 
duce and  give  this  baptism.  It  must  there- 
fore have  been  regarded  as  something  dif- 
ferent in  kind  or  degree  from  any  blessing  con- 
ferred on  saints  under  the  Mosaic  Economj'. 

But  the  expression,  to  btiptize  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  points  to  a  difference  in  degree,  rather 
than  in  kind,  between  this  blessing  and  any 
that  had  been  given  before.  Moses  and 
Samuel,  David  and  Isaiah,  were  not  strangers 
to  the  illuminating  and  sanctifying  work  of 
the  Spirit.  All  good  men  from  the  beginning 
had  felt  his  gracious  influence.  But  this  in- 
fluence was  not  so  all-embracing  and  over- 
flowing as  immersion  in  the  Spirit.  It  did 
not  flood  their  souls  with  such  light  and 
power  as  came  on  the  early  disciples.  This 
general  difference  between  the  presence  of 
the  Holj'  Spirit  before,  and  his  presence  after 
the  Day  of  Pentecost,  is  obvious  to  every 
student  of  the  Scriptures. 

But  in  describing  the  fulfillment  of  this 
prediction  of  the  Baptist,  the  sacred  record 
does  not  affirm  that  all  Christians,  from  the 
Day  of  Pentecost  onward,  were  baptized  in 
the  Spirit.  In  two  instances  it  represents  the 
prediction  as  fulfilled,  that  is,  on  the  Day  of 
Pentecost  and  before  the  baptism  of  Cornelius 
(Acts  1;  5,  8;  2:  1  sq. ;  10:  44-49;  11:  15,  IG), 
and  in  both  these  instances  some  of  the  re- 
sults were  extraordinary.  Great  power,  as 
well  as  great  grace,  was  imparted  to  those 
who  were  immersed  in  the  Spirit;  for  they 
spoke  with  tongues  and  prophesied. 


Ch.  I.] 


JOHN. 


77 


34  And  I  saw,  and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  !  34  tizcth  '  in  the  Holy  .Sjiirit.    And  I  have  seen,  and 


God, 

35  Again  the  next  day  after,  John  stood,  and  two  of 
his  disciples  ; 

36  And  looking  upon  Jesus  as  he  walked,  he  saith, 
•Behold  the  Laiub  of  (lod! 

37  Aiul  the  two  disciples  heard  him  speak,  and  they 
followed  Jesus. 


have  borne  witness  that  this  is  the  Son  of  liod. 

35  Again  on   the   morrow   Jolin   was  standing,  and 

36  two  of  his  disci|>les ;  and  he  looked  ujion  Jesus  as 
he  walked,  and  sailli.  Heboid,  the  J>anib  of  (iod! 

37  And  the  two  disciples  heard  him  sfteak,  and  they 


But  the  fulfiUinent  of  the  promise  was  not 
liniited  to  those  instances,  any  more  than  was 
the  promise  itself  to  the  form  which  it  took 
on  the  lips  of  John  the  Baptist.  The  same 
promise  was  uttered  by  Joel,  in  other  terms, 
and  the  same  promise  was  fulfilled  when  other 
terms  were  used  to  describe  the  event.  Yet 
there  is  some  reason  to  believe  that,  as  it  was 
understood  by  the  apostles,  its  fulfillment  in- 
cluded in  every  insttmce  one  or  more  of  the 
special  gifts  which  distinguished  the  first  age 
of  the  church  (Joel  2:  28  sq, ;  Isa.  44:  3;  John 
16:  12-15;  20:  22,  23;  Actsl:  8;  2:16sq.;  6:3, 
6,  8;  8:  6,  7,  16,  17;  19:  6).  Not  that  these 
gifts  were  deemed  more  precious  than  faith, 
hope,  and  love,  but  that  the  former  as  well  as 
the  latter  are  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and  were 
embraced  in  that  wonderful  work  which  was 
foretold  by  Joel,  by  John,  and  by  Christ. 

If  this  be  correct,  it  can  hardly  be  said  that 
baptism  in  the  Spirit  is  equally  the  privilege 
of  all  Christians.  Yet  it  may  be  said  that  the 
presence  of  the  Spirit  is  with  every  Christian, 
doing  for  him,  in  the  way  of  sanctification  and 
support,  all  that  he  needs  or  accepts.  This 
gracious  presence  of  the  Spirit  is  the  spring 
of  holy  peace,  and  joy,  and  strength  in  the 
soul.  Whether  an\'thing  like  miraculous  en- 
dowment would  be  of  real  service  to  Chris- 
tians in  the  present  age,  may  be  doubtful ; 
but  if  it  is  needed  now,  or  should  be  needed 
hereafter,  it  will  surely  be  given ;  for  he  who 
baptizeth  in  the  Holy  Spirit  sits  upon  the 
throne. 

34,  And  I  saAV,  etc.  The  Revised  Ver- 
sion of  this  verse  is  correct :  And  I  have 
seen,  and  have  borne  witness  that  this  is 
the  Son  of  God.  Thus  the  Baptist  repeats 
the  two  great  facts  of  his  work  as  the  harbin- 
ger of  Christ,  viz.,  that  he  himself  has  wit- 
nessed the  divinely  appointed  sign  of  the 
Messiah,  and  has  borne  witness  of  Jesus, 
when  he  had  been  thus  pointed  out  by  a  sign 
from  heaven,  as  the  Son  of  God.  And  this 
expression,  the  Son  of  God,  simply  echoes 
the  voice  from  heaven,  which  accompanied 


the  descent  of  the  Spirit,  and  was  heard  by 

Jesus     and     by     Jolm     (Matt.  3:  n;  Lnkc3:22).       To 

explain  the  importance  which  the  Evangelist 
attaches  to  this  testimony  of  the  Baptist,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  suppose  that  he  was  a  disci- 
ple of  the  Baptist  and  heard  it  from  liis  lips; 
and  to  explain  the  importance  which  the 
Baptist  attached  to  it,  it  is  only  necessary  to 
suppose  that  he  had  received  from  God  the 
communication  described  in  this  verse,  be- 
fore he  witnessed  the  descent  of  the  Spirit 
and  the  voice  from  heaven.  Besides,  it  is 
possible  that  Jesus  and  John  were  alone  at 
the  baptism,  or  that  the  vision  and  voice 
were  a  subjective  revelation  to  them,  or  that, 
though  perceived  by  the  people,  they  were 
not  understood.  (See  John  12:  28,29.)  If 
either  of  these  .suppositions  is  correct,  the 
testimony  of  John  would  seem  to  be  more 
isolated  and  important  still. 
35-42.  The  First  Dispiples  of  Jesus. 

35.  Again,  the  next  day  after,  John 
stood  (or,  was  standing),  and  two  of  his 
disciples.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the 
writer,  if  he  was  himself  one  of  these  two 
disciples,  should  have  been  thus  particular  in 
his  notices  of  time.  These  were  days  never 
to  be  forgotten,  and  these  were  testimonies 
that  led  him  to  the  Lord. 

36.  And  looking  upon  Jesus  as  he 
walked,  etc.  The  participle  translated 
looking  upon  seems  to  denote  an  earnest 
and  perhaps  fixed  gaze  (compare  John  1  :  42; 
Mark  10:21,  2;;  14:67;  Luke  20:17;  22: 
61) ;  and  the  brief  expression  uttered  by  the 
Baptist  was  full  of  meaning,  and  recalled  all 
his  testimony  of  the  day  before. 

37.  And  the  two  disciples  heard  him 
speak  (or,  sj^eaking).  Evidently  his  excla- 
mation was  not  addressed  particularly  to 
them  ;  perhaps  it  was  merely  the  cry  of  his 
heart  that  must  needs  utter  itself  Some  of 
the  greatest  and  best  results  are  brought  to 
pass  by  almost  aimless  acts  of  a  holy  soul. 
In  this  case,  the  words,  though  addressed  to 
no    one    in    particular,    fell    upon    prepared 


78 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  I. 


38  Then  Jesus  turned,  and  saw  them  following,  and 
saith  unto  them,  What  seek  ye.'  They  said  unto  him, 
Kabhi,  (which  is  to  say,  being  interpreted,  Master,) 
where  dwellest  thou? 

o9  He  saith  unto  them,  Come  and  see.  They  came 
and  saw  where  he  dwelt,  and  abode  with  him  that  day : 
for  it  was  about  the  tenth  hour. 

40  One  of  the  two  which  heard  John  speak,  and  fol- 
lowed him,  was  «  Andrew,  isimon  Peter's  brother. 


38  followed  Jesus.  And  Jesus  turned,  and  beheld 
them  following,  and  saith  unto  them.  What  seek 
ye?  And  they  said  unto  him.  Rabbi  (which  is  to 
say,    being    interpreted,    iMaster),    where    abidest 

39  thou  f  He  saith  unto  them,  Come,  and  ye  shall 
see.  They  came  therefore  and  saw  where  he  abode ; 
and  they  abode  with  him   that  day :  it  was  about 

40  the  tenth  hour.  One  of  the  two  that  heard  John 
speak,    and    followed    him,    was    Andrew,    Simon 


a  Matt.  4  :  18. 1  Or,  Teache 


hearts,  and  bore  fruit  in  action. — And  they 
followed  Jesus.  That  is,  they  went  after 
him,  as  he  walked  awaj',  for  the  purpose  of 
learning  more  about  him  from  his  own  lip.s, 
and  expecting,  no  doubt,  to  find  in  him  the 
Me-ssiah.  But  their  steps  were  heard  by  the 
Saviour. 

38.  Then  (better,  And)  Jesus  turned, 
and  saw  (beheld)  them  following,  and 
saith  unto  them,  What  seek  ye?  This 
question  was  perfectly  natural,  whether  it 
was  asked  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
why  they  followed  his  steps,  or  whether  it 
was  intended,  as  we  rather  believe,  to  open 
the  way  for  them  to  express  wliat  he  saw 
already  was  in  their  hearts.— Rabbi  (which  is 
to  say,  being  interpreted,  Master),  where 
dwellest  (i.  e.,  abidest)  thou?  By  this  re- 
sponse the^'  recognize  him  as  a  Teacher,  and 
intimate  their  desire  to  speak  with  him  at 
some  convenient  time  in  private.  His  an- 
swer to  their  suggestion  is  prompt  and  cor- 
dial, for 

39.  He  saith  unto  them.  Come  and 
see:  or,  Come,  arid  ye  shall  see  (Rev. 
Ver.).  This  was  an  invitation  to  come  at 
once.  Let  Christian  teachers  imitate  their 
Master.  Now  is  the  convenient  time  for  one 
who  is  eager  to  do  good.  As  to  the  text,  the 
evidence  for  the  reading  ye  shall  see,  out- 
weighs that  for  see.— They  came  (there- 
fore) and  saw  Avhere  he  dwelt  (or,  abode); 
literally,  ichere  he  abides;  a.reminiscence  of 
the  form  of  their  question,  verse  38.  There- 
fore makes  their  coming  a  consequence  of 
his  invitation. — And  they  abode  [remained] 
with  him  that  day  :  for  it  was  about  the 
tenth  hour.  For  should  be  omitted  as  an 
interpolation.  "The  great  importance  of 
this  hour  for  John  himself  {it  runs  the  first  of 
his  Christian  life)  made  it  forever  memorable 
to  him,  and  led  him  to  mention  it  expressly 
in  this  place." — Meyer.  According  to  Jew- 
ish reckoning,  the  tenth  hour  of  the  day  was 
four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon;  but  there  is 


reason  to  believe  that  John  did  not  follow 
this  method  of  reckoning  the  hours  of  the 
da^',  but  reckoned  from  midnight  to  noon- 
day, and  from  noonday  to  midnight.  (Com- 
pare 4  :  6,  52;  19  :  14.)  From  ten  in  the 
morning  until  the  evening  was,  doubtless, 
the  period  which  is  here  called  that  day, 
i.  e.,  the  rest  of  that  day.  With  this  view 
the  language  of  the  Evangelist  is  certainly 
more  expressive,  if  not  more  natural,  than  it 
would  be  if  the  other  mode  of  reckoning  had 
been  followed,  so  that  this  would  have  been 
four  o'clock  p.  m.  See  notes  under  4  :  6,  52, 
and  19:  14;  also  Edersheim,  "The  Life  and 
Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah"  on  these  pas- 
sages. 

40.  One  of  the  two  which  heard  John 
speak,  and  followed  him,  was  Andrew, 
Simon  Peter's  brother.  According  to 
certain  modern  critics  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
its  author  sought  to  diminish  the  influence  of 
the  Petrine  party  in  his  own  day,  by  giving 
to  Peter  a  lower  place  among  the  apostles 
than  had  been  assigned  to  him  by  Synoptical 
tradition.  But  we  discover  no  evidence  of 
such  a  purpose  in  the  Gospel.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  same  leading  position  is  given  to 
him  in  this  Gospel  as  in  the  others.  Andrew 
is  introduced  as  Simon  Peter's  brother, 
while  the  character  of  Peter  is  perceived  by 
the  Lord  at  once,  and  recognized  by  the  gift 
of  a  new  name  (ver.  42.). 

But  who  was  the  unnamed  companion  of 
Andrew?  Probably  the  Evangelist  himself. 
For  (1)  the  narrative  in  this  place  is  very 
particular  and  graphic,  making  it  probable 
that  the  writer  was  an  ej'e-Avitness.  (2)  The 
writer  of  such  a  narrative  would  have  been 
sure  to  mention  the  name  of  the  other  disci- 
ple as  well  as  that  of  Andrew,  tinless  there 
had  been  some  reason  for  withholding  it. 
(3)  The  writer  of  this  Gospel  never  refers  to 
himself  elsewhere  by  name,  and  the  same 
feeling  which  led  him  to  withhold  his  name 
elsewhere  accounts  for  his  withholding  it  here. 


Ch.  I.] 


JOHN. 


79 


41  He  first  findeth  his  own  brother  Simon,  and  saif  h 
unto  hiiu,  We  have  found  the  Messias,  which  is,  being 
interpreted,  the  Christ. 

42  And  he  brought  him  to  Jesus.  And  when  Jesus 
beheld  him,  he  said,  Thou  art  Simon  the  sou  of  Jona: 
<»  thou  shall  be  called  Cephas,  which  is  by  interpreta- 
tion, A  stone. 

43  The  day  following  Jesus  would  go  forth  into  Gali- 
lee, and  findeth  Philip,  and  saith  unto  him,  Follow  me. 


41  Peter's  brother.  He  findeth  first  his  own  brother 
Simon,  and  saith   unto   him,  We   have   found   the 

42  Mes.siah)  whieh  is,  being  interpreted,  U'hrist).  He 
brought  him  unto  Jesus.  Jesus  looked  upon  him, 
and  said.  Thou  art  Simon  the  son  of  2Johu:  thou 
shah  be  called  Cephas  (which  is  by  interiiretalion, 
^I'eter). 

43  On  the  morrow  he  was  minded  to  go  forth  into 
Galilee,  and  he  findeth    Philip:    and  Jesus  saith 


a  Matt.  26:  18. 


That  is.  Anointed 2  Gr.,  Joanes  :  called  in  Matt.  xvi.  17,  Jonah 3  Tliat  is,  Rock  or  Stone. 


41.  He  first  findeth  his  own  brother 
Simon,  and  saith  unto  him,  We  have 
found  the  Messias,  which  is,  being  in- 
terpreted, the  Christ.  The  word  first  is 
probably  an  adjective  agreeing  with  he,  or 
this  one ;  and,  if  so,  it  suggests  that  tliere  was 
another,  a  second,  viz.,  the  Evangelist,  who 
also  •\vent  after  his  own  brother,  but  did  not 
find  him  as  soon  as  Andrew  found  Peter. 
But  each  went  after  his  own  brother,  and 
was  successful  in  finding  and  bringing  him 
to  Jesus.  A  good  example!  It  is  then  a 
reasonable  conjecture  that  Andrew  and  Peter, 
John  and  James  were  at  Bethany,  beyond 
the  Jordan,  attending  on  the  ministry  of 
John  the  Baptist,  when  Jesus  returned  from 
his  trial  in  the  wilderness,  that  all  were  made 
acquainted  with  Jesus  the  same  day,  and 
that,  after  the  Baptist,  these  four  men  were 
the  first  to  acknowledge  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 
And  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  Andrew  says, 
"We  have  found  the  Messias,"  as  if  they 
had  been  seeking  him.  Hence  they  were 
truly  devout  men,  "waiting  for  the  consola- 
tion of  Israel."  They  were  prepared  to  fol- 
low the  Messiah  as  soon  as  he  was  known  to 
them.  They  were  already  renewed  in  heart, 
and  therefore  eager  to  discover  the  promised 
Christ.  No  wonder  then  that  they  felt,  from 
the  first  moment,  the  attractive  power  of  his 
presence,  the  divine  puritj''  and  sweetness  of 
his  spirit.  The  ministry  of  John  had  borne 
fruit,  and  the  way  of  the  Lord  was  prepared  in 
these  hearts.  The  parenthesis,  which  simply' 
translates  the  Hebrew  term  Messiah  into 
Greek,  shows  that  the  Evangelist  was  writing 
for  persons,  some  of  whom  were  not  supposed 
to  know  the  Hebrew  language.  Both  terms 
signify  anointed.  Prophets,  priests,  and  kings 
were  anointed,  in  token  of  their  having  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  qualify  them  for  their  re- 
spective offices.  In  the  person  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  were  united  the  offices  of  prophet, 
priest,  and  king,  and  to  him  the  Spirit  was 
given  without  measure.  He  was  therefore 
pre-eminently  the  Anointed. 


If  now  it  be  asked :  What  did  the  Holy 
Spirit  do  for  the  Lord  Jesus?  this  answer 
may  be  suggested:  Just  what  the  relation  of 
the  Spirit's  work  in  the  soul  of  Christ  may 
have  been  to  that  of  his  higher  nature,  the 
Word,  is  unrevealed ;  but  from  the  office  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  economy  of  salvation,  i.  e., 
to  renew,  sanctify,  and  prepare  men  for  the 
reception  of  truth,  it  may  be  inferred  that  the 
human  soul  of  Jesus  was  moved  by  the  Spirit 
to  desire  and  seek  the  verj'  things  which  the 
incarnate  Word  desired  and  sought,  thus 
contributing  to  the  perfect  unity  of  aim  and 
spirit  which  distinguished  Christ  from  all 
other  men. 

42.  For  a  literal  translation  of  this  verse, 
see  Revised  Version  above.  It  was  probably 
a  very  easy  task  which  Andrew  performed  in 
leading  his  brother  to  Jesus.  As  they  drew 
near,  Jesus  fixed  his  eyes  upon  Sitnon  with  a 
gaze  that  pierced  even  the  depths  of  his  soul. 
Perceiving  the  strength  of  his  character,  he 
at  once  bestowed  on  him  a  name  expressive 
of  that  strength;  he  dechired  that  he  should 
be  called  Cephas,  that  is,  Peter,  that  is.  Rock. 
Surely  the  writer  who  mentions  this  early 
recognition  of  Peter's  greatness  by  his  Lord 
did  not  seek  to  diminish  the  influence  of  this 
prompt  and  noble  servant  of  Christ.  It  will 
be  n-jticed  that  the  Revised  Version  omits 
the  conjunction  and  {xai)  before  brought, 
with  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and 
Hort;  also  and  (Se)  before  beheld,  or 
looked  (eM^Ae^os),  with  Tisch.,  Treg.,  W.  and 
H.;  and  substitutes  John  for  Jona,  as  the 
name  of -Peter's  father,  with  Lachmann, 
Tisch.,  Treg.,  W.  and  H. 

43-51.  Another  Group  of  Disciples 
Called. 

43.  The  day  follOAving,  etc.,  better  as  in 
Revised  Version :  On  the  moj-row  he  wns 
minded  to  go  forth  into  Galilee,  and  he 
findeth  Philip :  and  Jesus  saith  unto  hitn. 
Follow  me.  This  was  probablj'  the  fourth 
day  from  the  visit  of  the  deputation  (v. 
19,  sq.),  and  the  finding  of  Philip  seems  to 


80 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  I. 


44  Now  "  Philip  was  of  Bethsaida,  the  city  of  Andrew 
and  Peter. 

45  Philip  finJeth  *Nathaiiael,  and  saith  unto  him, 
We  have  found  him,  of  whom  >: Moses  in  the  law,  and 
the  ''prophets,  did  write,  Jesus «  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of 
Joseph. 

4(j  And  Nathanael  said  unto  him, /Can  there  any 
good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth?  Philip  saith  unto 
him,  Come  and  see. 

47  Jesus  saw  Nathanael  coming  to  him,  and  saith  of 
him,  Behold  s  an  Israelite  indeed,  in  whom  is  no  guile ! 


44  unto  him.  Follow  me.    Now  Philip  was  from  Beth- 

45  saida,  of  the  city  of  Andrew  and  Peter.  Philip 
fiudeth  Nathanael,  and  saith  unto  him.  We  have 
found  him,  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law,  and  the 
prophets,  did  write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of 

4G  Joseph.  And  Nathanael  said  unto  him,  Can  any 
good   thing  come  out  of  Nazareth?    Philip   saith 

47  unto  him,  Come  and  see.  Jesus  saw  Nathanael 
coming  to  him,  and  saith  of  him,  Behold,  an  Israel- 


och.  12:  21 5ch.  21:  2 c  Gen.  .S:  15;  49  :  10  ;  Deut.  18:  18.     See  ou  Luke  24  :  27 d  Isa.  4:2;    7:  14;  9  :  6  ;  53  :  2  ;  Mic.  5:2;  Zech. 

6:  12;  9:  9.    See  more  on  Luke  24  :  27 e  Malt.  2:  23;  Luke  2:  4..../ch.  7:  41,  42,52 g  Ps.  32  :  2  ;  73:  1 ;  ch.  8:  30;  Rom.  2:  28,  29;  9:6. 


have  occurred  when  Jesus  was  about  leaving 
his  temporary  abode  in  the  trans-Jordanic 
Bethany.  See  the  note  of  Meyer  on  this 
passage,  and  tlie  remarks  of  Luthardt  on  the 
frequent  co-ordination  of  one  chiuse  with 
another  in  the  New  Testament,  and  especially 
in  the  writings  of  John,  when  in  classic  Greek 
one  of  them  would  have  been  subordinated  to 
the  other.  Thus:  "As  he  was  minded  to  go 
forth  into  Galilee,  he  findeth  Philip,"  would 
have  been  more  classical  than  the  text. 

Was  Jesus  seeking  for  Philip?  Or  did  he 
meet  him  casually  ?  The  import  of  findeth 
would,  perhaps,  be  satisfied  by  merely  assum- 
ing that  Jesus  was  already  intent  upon  win- 
ning disciples,  so  that  the  apparently  casual 
meeting  with  Philip  led  at  once  to  a  call 
which  expressed  the  feeling  of  a  person  who 
was  seeking  him.  The  words,  follow  me, 
were  surely  a  call  to  accept  Christ  as  a  spirit- 
ual guide  and  teacher,  and  not  merely  to 
accompany  him  into  Galilee.  They  were  not, 
however,  a  definite  call  to  the  Apostleship. 
According  to  the  best  authorities,  the  word 
Jesus  should  be  omitted  in  the  first  clause  of 
the  common  text,  and  inserted  in  the  third. 

44.  Now  Philip  was  of  Bethsaida,  the 
city  of  Andrew  and  Peter.  The  exact  po- 
sition of  Bethsaida  is  unknown,  but  it  appears 
to  have  been  situated  near  the  Sea  of  Galilee, 
on  the  northwest  side.  Dr.  Thompson  sup- 
poses that  it  was  situated  east  of  the  entrance 
of  the  Jordan  into  the  Sea  of  Galilee ;  but 
Major  Wilson  identifies  it  with  Khan  Min- 
yeh,  further  south.  ("Sea  of  Galilee,"  in 
Warren's  "Recoverj'  of  Jerusalem,"  pp.  342, 
387.)  Philip  is  mentioned  several  times  in 
this  Gospel  (e.  ^r.,  6:  5,  7 ;  12:  21,  22;  14:  8). 

45.  We  have  found  him,  of  whom  3Ioses 
in  the  law,  and  the  prophets,  did  write, 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of  Joseph. 
Philip  was  acquainted  with  Nathanael  (Theo- 
dore, Gift-of-God),  and  knew  him  to  be  a  de- 
vout  soul,    waiting    for   the    Messiah.     He, 


therefore,  at  once  sought  and  found  him. 
And  from  his  language  to  Nathanael,  We 
have  found,  it  may  be  inferred  that  Philip 
was  also  seeking  in  spirit  for  the  Christ  when 
Jesus  found  him.  It  seems  probable,  there- 
fore, that  all  these,  Andrew  and  Peter,  James 
and  John,  Philp  and  Nathanael  (called,  also, 
Bartholomew),  were  disciples  of  John,  from 
the  same  part  of  Galilee,  and  so  were  ac- 
quainted with  one  another;  also,  that  they 
were  all  at  Bethany,  and  accompanied  Jesus 
to  Galilee.  Philip  was  not  mistaken  when  he 
said  that  Moses  and  the  prophets  wrote  of 
Christ;  for  the  Lord  himself  afterwards  as- 
serted the  same  (5:  39,  46;  Luke  24  :  44).  At 
this  time  Philip  did  not  know  the  particu- 
lars of  Jesus'  birth,  and  therefore  described 
him  as  the  son  of  Joseph,  his  reputed  father. 

46.  Can  there  any  good  thing  come  out 
of  Nazareth  ?  What  may  be  inferred  from 
the  question  of  Nathanael  as  to  Nazareth? 
Was  it  simply  an  insignificant  town?  Or 
was  it  a  place  of  ill  repute  also?  Since  Na- 
thanael was  from  Cana  of  Galileee,  a  village 
not  far  from  Nazareth,  and  in  the  same  prov- 
ince, it  is  presumable  that  he  would  not  speak 
thus  of  the  latter  place  simply  because  it  was 
situated  in  Galilee,  or  because  it  was  an  in- 
considerable village.  Nazareth  must  have 
been  in  ill  repute  for  morality.  And  this  cir- 
cumstance may  afford  a  clue  to  the  interpret- 
ation of  Matt.  2:  23,  if  the  phrase,  "He  shall 
be  called  a  Nazarene,"  is  regarded  as  an  epit- 
ome of  the  predictions  which  speak  of  him 
as  "despised  and  rejected  of  men."  On 
Philip's  brief  response.  Come  and  see, 
Bengel  remarks:  "The  best  remedj' for  pre- 
conceived opinions!"  and  Lange:  "A  watch- 
word of  the  Christian  faith  !  " 

47.  Behold  an  Israelite  indeed,  in 
whom  is  no  guile  !  The  Evangelist,  doubt- 
less, means  to  suggest  that  Jesus  looked  into 
the  soul  of  Nathanael  and  perceived  him 
to  be    a  genuine    servant    of   God,   sincere, 


Ch.  I.] 


JOHN. 


81 


48  Nathana('l  saith  tinto  him,  Whence  knowest  thou 
me?  Jeisiis  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Before  that 
Philip  called  thee,  when  thou  wast  under  the  tig  tree,  I 
saw  thee. 

49  Nathanael  answered  and  saith  unto  him,  Rahlii, 
«  thou  art  the  Son  of  (Jod  ;  thou  art'  the  King  ot'  Israel. 

51)  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  because  I  said 
unto  thee,  I  saw  thee  under  the  fig  tree,  believest  thou? 
thou  shalt  sec  greater  things  than  these. 

51  And  he  saitli  unto  him,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  "Hereafter  ye  shall  see  heaven  open,  and  the  an- 
gels of  God  a.scending  and  descending  upon  the  Son  of 
man. 


48  ite  indeed,  in  whom  is  no  guild  Nathanael  saith 
unto  him,  Wlience  knowest  thou  me?  .lesiis  an- 
swered and  said  unto  him,  Uefore  Philip  called 
thee,  wlien  thou  wast  under  the  tig  tree,  I  saw  thee. 

49  Nathanael  answered   him,  Kahlii,  thou  ait  the  ,Soli 

50  of  (iod;  thou  art  King  of  Israel.  .Jesus  answered 
and  said  unto  him,  llceause  I  said  unto  thee,  I  saw 
thee  underneath  the  fig  tree,  helievest  thou?  thou 

51  shalt  see  greater  things  than  these.  And  he  saith 
unto  him,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Ye  shall 
see  the  heaven  opened,  and  the  angels  of  God  as- 
cending and  descending  upon  the  Sou  of  man. 


a  Matt.  14:  ;«  ...ft  Matt.  21  :  5  ;  27:  11,  42;  ch.  18:  37;  19:  .3 c  Gen.  28:  12;    Matt.  4:  11;  Luke  2 :  9.  13;  22:  43;  24:  4;  Acts  1 :  10. 


truthful,  open-hearted.  His  remark  was  not 
addressed  to  Nathanael,  but  was  heard  by 
him  as  he  drew  near.     Hence,  the  next  verse. 

48.  Before  that  Philip  called  thee, 
when  thou  wast  under  the  fig  tree,  I 
saw  thee.  By  this  answer  to  Nathanael's 
question,  Whence  knowest  thou  me  ?  Jesus 
evidently  intended  to  claim  supernatural 
knowledge.  The  fig  tree  in  question  must 
"therefore  have  been  out  of  sight  from  any 
and  every  place  where  Jesus  might  have 
been  at  the  time.  Otherwise,  his  answer 
would  not  have  made  such  an  impression 
on  the  mind  of  Nathanael  as  it  did  make, 
and  as  he  surely  intended  to  have  it  make. 
But  if  Jesus  had  seen  Nathanael  when  and 
where  it  was  impossible  to  do  this  by  any 
natural  power  of  vision,  he  might  well  be 
supposed  to  look  into  the  soul  itself,  and  dis- 
cover its  true  character.  By  this  reference 
to  an  event  which  Nathanael  recognized,  he 
proved  that  he  had  supernatural  knowledge 
in  the  world  of  sense,  and  plainly  intimated 
that  he  had  similar  access  to  the  soul  of  man, 
and  had  learned  the  character  of  Nathanael 
bj'  direct  intuition.  Hence,  the  conviction 
uttered  by  Nathanael  in  response  to  this  reve- 
lation. Whether  there  was  anything  in  the 
purpose  for  which  Nathanael  had  resorted  to 
the  fig  tree,  or  in  his  action  while  under  it, 
which  added  force  to  the  Saviour's  remark, 
we  are  unable  to  say ;  but  it  is  very  natural 
to  imagine  that  he  was  there  for  a  religious 
purpose — for  solitary  communion  with  God ; 
and  it  is  quite  possible  that  his  spirit  had 
been  deeply  moved  at  that  time  by  the  Spirit  I 
of  God  with  reference  to  the  Messiah,  if  not  j 
with  reference  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  If  j 
this  was  so,  the  statement  of  Jesus  must  have  | 
been  all  the  more  impressive  and  convincing.  | 

49.  Rabbi,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God  ;  | 
thou  art  the  King  of  Israel.  If  Nathanael  \ 
was  present  when  John  the  Baptist  uttered 


the  words  recorded  in  verse  34  above,  and 
knew  that  they  referred  to  Jesus,  or,  at  least, 
to  the  Messiah,  it  is  not  in  the  least  surprising 
that  he  now  expressed  his  faith  in  Jesus  by 
the  same  words,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God. 
Especially  natural  would  this  have  been,  if 
he  had  gone  to  the  fig  tree  with  this  remark- 
able testimony  of  the  Baptist  in  his  mind, 
and  had  there  in  solitary  communion  with 
God  been  prepared  for  the  message  brought 
by  Philip.  Yet,  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that 
the  Messiah  is  represented  as  the  Son  of  God 
in  the  Second  Psalm.  Very  excellent  are  the 
comments  of  Godet  on  this  verse:  " The  two 
titles  complete  one  another:  Son  of  God,  bears 
on  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  God ;  King  of 
Israel,  on  his  relation  to  the  chosen  people. 
The  second  title  is  the  logical  consequence  of 
the  first.  The  personage  who  lives  in  so  in- 
timate a  relation  to  God,  can  only  be,  as  is 
alleged,  the  King  of  Israel,  the  Messiah.  Thi.s 
second  title  corresponds  to  the  Israelite  in- 
deed, with  which  Jesus  has  saluted  Natbanael. 
The  faithful  subject  has  recognized  and  sa- 
lutes his  king."  Liicke  remarks,  "that  the 
order  of  these  two  designations  may  be  due 
to  the  immediate  iinpression  of  the  divine  in 
Jesus,  from  which  the  utterance  of  Nathanael 
flowed." 

50.  Because  I  said  unto  thee,  I  saw 
thee  under  the  fig  tree,  believest  thou? 
Thou  shalt  see  greater  things  than  these. 

The  words  translated,  believest  thou?  might 
he  tTwwf^AteA  thou  believest ;  but  the  meaning 
would  remain  essentially  the  same.  Jesus  ac- 
cepts the  utterance  of  Nathanael  as  a  sincere 
expression  of  faith,  and  assures  him  that  the 
evidence  on  which  that  faith  rests  will  be 
greatlv  surpassed  by  other  evidence  to  be 
given  by  the  Messiah. 

51.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you. 
Hereafter  ye  shall  see  heaven  open,  and 
the    angels    of  God   ascending   and   de- 


82 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  II. 


CHAPTEK  II. 


LND  the  third  day  there  was  a  marriage  in  "Cana  of 
Galilee;  aud  the  mother  of  Jesus  was  there: 


1      And  the  third  day  there  was  a  marriage  in  Caua 
of  Galilee;  and  the  mother  of  Jesus  was  there:  and 


1  See  Josh.  19 :  2R. 


scending  upon  the  Son  of  man.  Though 
the  Evangelist  represents  Christ  as  speaking 
these  words  to  Nathanael,  they  were  meant 
without  doubt  for  the  others  also,  as  the  plural 
ye  intimates.  The  double  verily,  or  amen, 
which  this  Evangelist  attributes  to  .Tesus 
twenty-five  times  (Meyer),  is  never  attributed 
to  him  by  the  other  Evangelists,  is  never  used 
for  himself  by  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel, and  is  never  attributed  by  him  to  any 
one  save  Christ.  These  facts  are  unaccount- 
able, if  this  Gospel  was  written  by  a  forger 
of  the  second  century;  they  can  only  be  ex- 
plained, if  it  was  written  by  a  disciple  of 
Jesus  whose  spirit  had  been  deeply  moved 
by  this  form  of  expression.  The  words  that 
follow  seem  to  be  taken,  in  part,  from  the 
language  used  in  describing  Jacob's  vision  at 
Bethel  (Oeu.  2S:  12).  But  to  what  do  they  refer? 
If  we  draw  an  answer  to  this  question  from 
the  probable  import  of  that  vision,  it  will  be 
to  this  effect:  "You  will  have  the  clearest 
evidence  that  heaven  is  near,  and  open  to  the 
Son  of  man,  and  that  the  angels  of  God  are 
ever  reaay  to  do  his  will."  AVe  do  not  mean 
to  say  that  a  frequent  appearance  of  angels 
was  predicted  by  Christ  in  connection  with 
his  ministry,  but  rather  that  the  powers  of 
heaven  were  to  be  with  him,  and  to  befriend 
him. — If  we  adhere  to  the  common  text,  the 
word  hereafter  (an  apn),  meaning  "from  this 
time  forward,"  shows  tliat  no  special  refer- 
ence is  here  made  to  the  Transfiguration,  or  to 
the  Agony  in  the  Garden  ;  and  without  doubt 
the  phrase  (in-'  ipn.)  would  be  more  naturally 
omitted,  from  an  idea  that  Christ  referred  to 
those  particular  events,  than  inserted,  when 
there  seems  to  be  no  reason  whatever  for  the 
insertion.  Yet  some  of  the  best  manuscripts 
(X  B  L)  and  early  Versions,  with  Origen, 
Epiphanius,  and  Cyril,  omit  these  words, 
meaning  hereafter,  or  henceforth;  and  are 
followed  in  this  by  Lachmann,  Tregelles, 
Tischendorf,  "VVestcott  and  Hort,  the  Revised 
Version,  and  many  able  scholars.  We  can- 
not, therefore,  feol  at  all  confident  that  they 
belong  to  the  original  text,  though  the  im- 
probability of  their  insertion  by  a  transcriber 
appears  to  us  very  great. 


Jesus  here  refers  to  himself  as  the  Son  of 
man,  and  there  is  no  record  of  his  appro- 
priating the  title  before.  What  then  did  it 
signify  in  his  lips?  And  why  did  he  apph'  it 
so  often  to  him.self?  Some  have  answered 
these  questions  by  referring  to  Daniel  (7:  is) : 
"I  saw  in  the  night  visions,  and  behold  one 
like  the  Son  of  man  came  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven ;  and  he  came  to  the  Ancient  of  Days," 
etc.  But  this  prophecy  merely  describes  the 
Messiah  as  "like  unto  a  Son  of  man"  (see  Rev. 
Ver.  of  Old  Test. ).  It  does  not  call  him  ''the 
Son  of  man."  It  may,  however,  be  said  to 
describe  him  as  one  who  was  to  he  connected 
by  nature  with  mankind  in  general,  rather 
than  with  the  chosen  people,  or  with  the 
house  of  David  in  particular.  And  this  bear- 
ing of  the  expression  was  intended,  as  the 
context  proves,  just  as  the  effect  of  calling 
himself  the  Son  of  man  was  intended  by 
Christ,  to  wit,  that  his  connection  with  the 
whole  human  race  should  be  emphasized. 
The  title  must  therefore,  in  the  last  resort,  be 
appealed  to  as  self-interpreting.  And  looking 
at  the  expression  as  used  by  Jesus,  it  niay  be 
said  to  imply  three  things,  viz. :  (1)  That  he 
was  horn  of  man  ;  (2)  that  he  was  a  veritable 
man  ;  and  (3)  that  he  was  the  perfect  man,  or 
the  one  member  of  the  human  race  in  whom 
the  idea  of  man  was  realized.  He  was  a  son 
of  man,  and  therefore  man;  he  was  the  Son 
of  man,  and  therefore  the  perfect  or  ideal 
man.  He  was  neither  Jew  nor  Greek  in 
character  or  .sympathy,  but  the  representative 
man,  the  head  of  renewed  humanitv.  All 
this  is  expressed  by  the  designation  which  he 
here  appropriates  to  himself — the  Son  of 
man. 


Ch.  2:  1-11.  Marriage  AND  Miracle  in 
Cana  of  Galilee. 

1.  And  the  third  day  there  was  a  mar- 
riage in  Cana  of  Galilee.  The  Evangel- 
ist passes  at  once  from  the  neighborhood  of 
Bethany  bej'ond  the  Jordan,  to  Cana  of  Gali- 
lee, a  village  situated,  according  to  Dr.  Robin- 
son's identification,  about  nine  miles  noj-th  of 
I  Nazareth,  on  the  southern  declivity  of  a  hill, 


Ch.  II.] 


JOHN. 


83 


2  And  both  Jesus  was  called,  and  his  disciples,  to 
the  marriage. 

3  And  when  they  wanted  wine,  the  mother  of  Jesus 
saitJi  uuto  him.  They  have  no  wine. 


2  Jesus  also  was  bidden,  and  his  disciples,  to  the  mar- 

3  riage.    And  when   the  wine  Tailed,  the  mother  of 


and  overlooking  a  broad  and  fruitful  plain. 
This  village  is  now  called  Khurbet-Cana, 
which  is  said  to  have  retained  the  name 
Kana  el-Jelil  (see  Kobinson's  "  Biblical  Ke- 
searches,"  etc.,  II.  346-449).  Others  have 
insisted  that  the  site  was  at  Kefr  Kenna,  less 
tluin  four  miles  to  the  northeast  of  Nazareth. 
This,  we  observe,  is  the  view  of  Professor 
Stevens,  of  Rochester,  in  a  recent  article  de- 
scribing a  journey  from  Nazareth  to  Caper- 
naum. (See  the  "Sunday  School  Times," 
for  Feb.  7,  1885,  entitled,  "From  Nazareth 
to  Capernaum.")  Kefr  Kenna  lies  on  the 
side  of  a  hill  sloping  towards  the  north  or 
northwest.  The  valley  towards  the  west  is 
well-watered  and  fertile;  but  the  prospect 
from  the  village  is  not  very  extensive.  If 
Bethany  was  east  of  the  southern  part  of  the 
Jordan,  the  journey  from  that  place  to  Cana 
may  have  occupied  between  two  and  three 
days;  for  the  distance  was  about  sixty  miles, 
and  the  marriage  and  miracle  here  described, 
belong  to  the  third  day  after  the  one  last 
named  (i:«).  But  if  the  Bethany  referred  to 
was  at  or  near  the  ford  Abarah,  discovered 
by  Conder  (see  note  on  i :  28),  it  was  only  about 
twenty-two  miles  from  Cana;  and  Jesus  may 
have  rested  a  day  at  Nazareth  on  his  way  to 
the  more  northern  village.  And  the  mother 
of  Jesus  was  there.  From  the  solicitude 
which  the  mother  of  Jesus  felt  in  respect  to 
the  entertainment,  and  from  the  authority 
which  she  used  in  speaking  to  the  servants 
(ver.  5),  it  has  been  conjectured  that  the  wed- 
ding was  in  the  family  of  a  relative.  Dr. 
Hanna  remarks:  "If  Simon,  called  the  Ca- 
naanite,  was  called  so  because  of  his  connec- 
tion with  the  village  of  Cana,  his  fitther 
AlphiBUS,  or  Clophas,  who  was  married  to  a 
sister  of  Christ's  mother,  may  have  resided 
there;  and  it  may   have   been  in  his  familj' 

that    this    marriage    occurred At 

any  rate,  we  may  assume  that  it  was  [in]  a 
family  connected  by  some  close  ties,  whether 
of  acquaintance  or  of  relationship  with  that 
of  Jesus,  that  the  marriage  feast  was  kept." 
The  Evangelist,  however,  simply  states  that 
"the  mother  of  Jesus  was  there,"  without 
intimating  the  reason  why  she  was  there. 
Everything  be^'ond  this  is  conjecture,  though 


there  may   be  considerable  ground  for  the 
conjecture. 

2.  And  both  Jesus  was  called,  and  his 
disciples,  to  the  marriage.  The  invitation 
of  the  disciples  was,  probablj',  due  to  their 
connection  with  Jesus;  and  the  invitation  of 
Jesus  was  probably  given  after  his  return  to 
Gal'lee,  though  it  is  possible  that  his  wish  to 
return  into  Graliiee,  mentioned  above  (t:«), 
was  occasioned  by  his  knowledge  of  this  wed- 
ding. We  know  that  he  was  pleased  to  honor 
this  marriage  festival  with  his  presence,  and 
we  may  conjecture  that,  if  he  was  on  the 
lower  Jordan,  he  desired  to  leave  his  place 
just  three  days  before,  because  it  was  neces- 
sary for  him  to  do  so,  in  order  to  reach  Cana 
in  time  for  the  marriage.  But  there  seem  to 
be  strong  reasons  for  doubting  whether  he 
was  south  of  the  Jabbok,  and  not  rather 
north  of  that  stream,  and  so  within  twenty  or 
thirty  miles  of  Cana.  Here,  first,  are  "the 
disciples,"  mentioned  as  a  group  of  followers, 
who  accompany  the  Lord  iu  his  journeys 
from  place  to  place.  A  more  exact  render- 
ing of  the  original  would  be:  And  Jesus  also 
was  bidden,  and  his  disciples,  to  the  marriage. 

3.  And  when  they  wanted  wine. 
More  precisely  :  And  lohen  the  wine  failed. 
Whether  this  failure  of  wine  was  due  to  the 
presence  of  more  guests  than  had  been  ex- 
pected, or  to  some  other  cause,  will  never  be 
known  ;  and  how  long  the  marriage  had  been 
in  progress,  must  also  be  a  matter  for  con- 
jecture. But  for  some  reason,  perhaps  from 
an  unexpected  accession  of  guests  coming  with 
Jesus,  there  was  now  a  lack  of  wine',  and  this 
lack  was  known  to  the  mother  of  Jesus.  Re- 
lying on  the  ability  of  her  son,  she  informed 
him  of  the  want  that  would  soon  be  felt ;  but 
with  something  in  her  look  or  tone  which 
indicated  an  expectation  of  timely  help. — 
They  have  no  wine.  To  state  the  want  is, 
in  such  a  case,  to  make  request  for  relief. 
Whether  she  anticipated  anything  miracu- 
lous may  be  doubtful ;  but  it  is  plain  that  she 
looked  for  assistance  in  some  way.  This 
might  come  by  natural  means,  and  she  may 
have  thought  of  nothing  else;  yet  the  cir- 
cumstance that  Jesus  had  returned  to  Galilee 
with  a  band  of  disciples,  may  have  led  her  to 


84 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  II. 


4  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  "Woman,  ''what  have  I  to  do 
■with  thee?  "mine  hour  is  not  yet  come. 

5  His  mother  saith  unto  the  servants,  Whatsoever 
he  saith  unto  you,  do  it. 

6  And  there  were  set  there  six  waterpots  of  stone, 
''after  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews,  con- 
taining two  or  three  firliins  apiece. 


4  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  They  have  no  wine.    And 
Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Woman,  what  have  I  to  do 

5  with  thee?  mine  hour  Is  not  yet  come.    His  mother 
saitli  unto  the  servants,  AVhatsoever  he  saith  unto 

6  you,  do  it.     Now  there  were  six  waterpots  of  stone 
set  there  after  the  Jews'  manner  of  purifying,  con- 


1  ch.  19 :  26 i  So  2  Sam.  16 :  10 ;  19 :  22 c  cb.  7  :  6. . .  .d  Mark  1 :  3. 


anticipate  some  sign  or  proof  of  his  Messianic 
power.  1 

4.  Jesus  saith  unto  her.  The  best  text 
has  a  connective,  thus:  And  Jesus  saith 
unto  her,  Woman,  what  have  I  to  do 
with  thee  ?  It  may  be  confidently  aflBrmed 
that  there  is  nothing  disrespectful  in  the  ad- 
dress, woman  (comp.  19:  26;  20:  13,  15; 
4:  21),  but  it  must  at  the  same  time  be  con- 
ceded that  it  failo  to  give  anj'  definite  expres- 
sion to  filial  sentiment  or  obedience.  It 
could  not  have  meant  to  recognize  and  honor 
the  dearest  human  relationship.  And  in  this 
respect  it  was  suitable;  for  it  was  associated 
with  words  that  denied  to  his  mother  an^' 
share  in  marking  out  his  course,  any  part  in 
the  work  he  was  sent  to  do  {see  2  Sam.  16:  10; 
1  Kings  17:  18;  2  Chron.  35:  21 ;  Matt.  8:  29). 
As  the  Messiah,  he  must  act  in  sole  subordi- 
nation to  his  Fathers  will.  Every  thing 
must  be  done  at  the  exact  time  and  in  the 
precise  manner  prescribed  by  divine  wisdom. 
Yet  he  did  not,  in  this  case,  refuse  to  do  what 
his  mother  had  virtually  requested  ;  he  rather 
intimated  by  the  saying,  mine  hour  is  not 
yet  come,  that  he  would,  in  his  own  time, 
fulfill  her  desire.  Perhaps  there  was  enough 
in  the  tone  of  his  emphatic  not  yet,  to  assure 
Mary  that  her  request  was  granted.  "  There 
is  no  inconsistency  between  this  declaration 
of  Christ  that  his  'hour  was  not  yet  come,'  and 
the  fulfillment  of  the  prayer  which  followed 
immediately.  A  change  of  moral  and  spir- 
itual conditions  is  not  measured  by  length  of 
time." — ( Westcott.) 

5.  Whatsoever  he  saith  unto  you,  do  it. 
The  it  which  is  added  by  the  translators,  is 
unnecessary.     The  mother  of  Jesus  appears 

1  According  to  a  reading  which  Tischendorf  adopts, 
this  verse  should  be  translated:  "And  they  had  no 
wine,  because  the  wine  of  the  marriage  feast  had 
failed."  In  support  of  this  text,  he  appeals  to  tt  with 
a  b  ff2  el,  five  Latin  MSS.  (iv.-vii  cent.),  Gaudentius, 
Syr.  (White)  margin,  and  AEth.,  while  the  common 
text  is  sustained  by  N*  A  B  L  X  T  A  A  n  etc.,  also  c  f 
q,  Vulg.  Cop.  Syr.  (three  editions).  Epiph.  Chrys.  Cyr. 
Plainly  the  ordinary  text  must  stand. 


to  have  had  authority  over  the  servants  who 
waited  on  the  guests,  and  she  appears,  also, 
to  have  expected  that  Jesus  would,  in  some 
way,  provide  the  wine  that  was  needed. 
How  it  was  to  be  procured,  she  had,  as  jet, 
no  means  of  knowing;  but  anything  which 
her  Son  might  direct,  she  was  sure  would  be 
wise.     Thus  she  left  all  to  Jesus. 

6.  And  there  were  set  there  six  water- 
pots  of  stone.  More  exactlj' :  Now  there 
were  six  waterpots  of  stone  set  there  after 
the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews.  The 
place  in  the  house  where  these  waterpots  stood 
is  not  mentioned,  but  the  exact  number  of  them 
is  stated,  as  well  as  the  purpose  which  they  were 
intended  to  serve.  Someof  the  Jews  carefully 
observed  rites  of  purification  not  prescribed  by 
the  Mosaic  law.  Thej-  were  accustomed  to  wash 
their  feet  after  walking  in  the  highway  (John 
13:  4-io\  and  their  hands  before  eating  (Mart  7:  s). 
They  also  kept  a  tradition  which  required 
sundry  immersions  of  cups  and  pots,  and 
vessels  of  brass,  if  not  of  couches  ( ibid ). 
To  hold  the  water  needed  for  such  rites  of 
purification,  these  six  waterpots  had  been 
provided,  and  they  were  now  at  hand  for 
another  use.  As  everything  touching  the 
substance  of  this  miracle  was  deemed  im- 
portant by  the  Evangelist,  he  mentions  the 
size,  as  well  as  the  number,  of  the  waterpots: 
containing  two  or  three  firkins  apiece. 
A  firkin  was  a  little  less  than  nine  gallons. 
If,  then,  we  suppose  that  they  held  two  and  a 
half  firkins  apiece,  on  an  average,  or  fifteen 
firkii.s  in  all,  it  would  take  about  133  gallons 
of  water  to  fill  them — certainlj*  a  moderate 
provision  for  the  purifications  that  might  be 
needed  at  such  a  feast,  even  though  they  were 
occasionally  replenished,  and  though  the  com- 
pany was  not  very  large.  .  .  .  "Walking 
among  these  ruins  [at  Cana]  we  saw  large, 
massive  stone  waterpots  .  .  .  not  preserved 
nor  exhibited  as  reliqucs,  but  lying  about, 
disregarded  by  the  present  inhabitants.  .  .  . 
From  their  appearance  and  the  number  of 
them,  it  was  quite  evident  that  a  practice  of 
keeping  water  in  large  stone  pots,  each  hold- 


Ch.  II.] 


JOHN. 


85 


7  Jesus  saith   unto   them,  Fill   the  waterpots   with 
water.     Aud  they  tilled  them  up  to  the  hrim. 

8  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Draw  out  now,  and  bear 
unto  the  governor  of  the  least.     And  they  bare  il. 

9  When  the  ruler  of  the  feast  had  tasted  "  the  water 


7  taining  two  or  three   firkins  apieoe.    Jesus  saith 
unto  them.   Fill  the   water)Mits  with   water.     And 

8  they  filled  them  up  to  the  brim.     .\nd  he  saith  unto 
them,  Draw  out  now,  and  bear  unto  the  i  ruler  of 

9  the  feast.    And  they  bare  it.    And  when  the  ruler 


a  oil.  i :  46. 1  Or,  steward. 


iiig  from  eighteen  to  twenty -"seven  gallons, 
was  once  common  in  the  country"  (E.  D. 
Clarke,  "Travels,"  II.  p.  445;  Van  Lennep, 
"Bible  Customs,"  p.  45,  note). 

7.  Fill  the  waterpots  with  water,  etc. 
The  persons  addressed  by  Jesus  were  servants, 
and  what  they  put  into  the  vessels  was  water. 
— And  they  filled  them  up  to  the  brim.  A 
significant  statement.  The  Evangelist  him- 
self was  doubtless  a  witness  of  this  whole 
transaction,  and  therefore  was  aware  of  the 
minute  particulars,  and  knew  that  there  was 
no  collusion.  But  if  he  did  not  hear  the 
words  of  Jesus  and  of  his  mother,  or  see  what 
the  servants  did  in  obedience  to  the  words  of 
Mary  and  of  Christ,  he  was  of  all  the  disciples 
just  the  one  who  would  in  all  probability 
have  heard  a  minute  account  of  this  miracle 
from  the  lips  of  Mary;  for  he  it  was  to  whom 
the  Lord  committed  his  mother  from  the 
cross,  and  who  from  that  hour  took  her  to  his 
own  home      (See  19:  26,  27). 

8.  .  .  .  Draw  out  now,  or.  Draw  noiv, 
and  bear  unto  the  governor  of  the  feast. 
Between  the  filling  of  the  waterpots  and  this 
drawing  of  a  portion  for  the  ruler  of  the 
feast,  the  miracle  seems  to  have  been  wrought. 
Tliis  is  the  most  natural  hypothesis,  though 
it  is  certainly  possible  that  the  water  was 
changed  to  wine  after  it  was  drawn  and 
while  it  was  being  carried  to  the  ruler  of  the 
feast.  Westcott,  however,  questions  this  view, 
as  follows:  "Tiiere  is  nothing  in  the  text 
which  definitely  points  to  such  an  interpreta- 
tion;  and  the  original  word  is  applied  most 
naturally  to  drawing  water  from  the  well 
(4:  7-15),  and  not  from  a  vessel  like  the  water- 
pot.  Moreover,  the  emphatic  addition  of 
now  seems  to  mark  the  continuance  of  the 
same  action  of  drawing  as  before,  but  with  a 
different  end.  Hitherto  they  had  drawn  to 
fill  the  vessels  of  purification ;  they  were 
charged  now  to  'draw  and  bear  to  the 
governor  of  the  feast.'  It  seems  most  un- 
likely that  water  taken  from  vessels  of  puri- 
fication could  have  been  employed  for  the 
purpose  of  the  miracle.  On  the  other  hand, 
the    significance  of  the    miracle    comes  out 


with  infinitely  greater  force,  if  the  change 
is  wrouglit  through  the  destination  of  the 
element.  That  which  remained  water  when 
kept  for  a  ceremonial  use,  became  wine  when 
borne  in  faith  to  minister  to  the  needs, 
even  to  the  superfluous  requirements,  of  life. 
This  view,  thtit  the  change  in  the  water  was 
determined  by  its  destination  for  use  at  the 
feast,  can  be  held  equally  if  the  water  so  used 
and  limited  to  that  which  was  used  were 
'  drawn '  from  the  vessels,  and  not  from  the 
well."  I  cannot  see  that  there  is  much  force 
in  any  one  of  these  reasons.  The  verb  may 
be  used  as  naturally  of  drawing  water  from  a 
deep  jar  as  from  a  well.  (See  Liddell  &  Scott 
on  tlie  word).  The  word  now  is  as  appropri- 
ate if  the  servants  drew  from  a  waterpot  to 
carry  to  the  ruler  of  the  feast,  as  if  they  drew 
from  a  well.  It  naturally  points  to  some 
change  in  the  action  of  the  servants.  No 
reason  is  obvious  why  water  from  the  stone 
jars  might  not  be  changed  into  wine  as  fitly 
as  water  from  a  well.  And  how  the  change 
could  be  wrought  "through  the  destination 
of  the  element"  does  not  appear.  That  it 
was  wrought  in  view  of  the  destination  of 
the  element,  is  supposed  by  the  common  in- 
terpretation as  well  as  by  the  one  suggested 
by  Westcott.  Moreover,  why  were  the  water- 
pots mentioned  at  all,  if  the  filling  of  them 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  miracle?  Mani- 
festly, the  Evangelist  would  have  his  readers 
understand  that  the  water  in  the  six  stone 
vessels  was  changed  into  wine.  If  not,  why 
did  he  state  the  number  and  the  capacity  of 
these  vessels?  His  doing  this  would  surely 
mislead  his  readers ;  for  they  would  be  certain 
to  conclude  that  the  exact  account  of  the 
waterpots  and  the  record  that  they  were 
filled  to  the  brim,  had  something  to  do  with 
the  miracle.  This  Evangelist  never  mentions 
circumstances  without  a  reason  for  doing  it. 
On  the  whole,  then,  though  it  is  possible 
that  the  change  occurred  after  the  water 
was  drawn  from  the  vessel,  it  is  much  more 
probable  that  the  water  was  changed  to  wine 
in  the  jars. 
9,  10.  And  when  the   ruler,   etc.      The 


86 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  II. 


that  was  made  wine,  and  knew  not  whence  it  was, 
(but  the  servants  which  drew  the  water  knew,)  the 
governor  ol'  the  feast  called  the  bridegroom, 

10  And  saith  unto  him.  Every  man  at  the  beginning 
dot li  set  forth  good  wine;  and  when  men  have  well 
drunk,  then  that  which  is  worse;  but  thou  hast  kepi 
the  good  wine  until  now. 

11  This  beginning  of  miracles  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of 
Galilee,  "and  manifested  forth  his  glory;  and  his  dis- 
ciples believed  on  him. 


of  the  feast  tasted  the  water  i  now  become  wine,  and 
knew  not  whence  it  was  (but  the  servants  who  had 
drawn  the  water  knew),  t  he  ruler  of  the  feast  calleth 

10  the  bridegroom,  and  saith  unto  him.  Every  man  set- 
teth  on  first  the  good  wine,  and  when  wen,  have 
drunk  freely,  then  that  which  is  worse:  thou  hast 

11  kept  the  good  wine  until  now.  This  beginning  of 
his  signs  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  mani- 
fested his  glory  ;  and  his  disciples  believed  on  him. 


-I  Or,  that  it  had  become. 


Revised  Version  reads  as  follows:  And  when 
the  ruler  of  the  feast  tasted  the  loater  now  be- 
come wine,  and  knew  not  lohcnce  it  was  [but 
the  servants  loho  had  drawn  the  water  knew), 
the  ruler  of  the  feast  calleth  the  bridegroom, 
and  saithunto  him,  Every  man  setteth  on  first 
the  good  wine;  and  when  {men)  have  drunk 
freely,  (then)  that  which  is  worse:  thou  hast 
kept  the  good  wine  until  now.  The  word 
translated  ruler  of  the  feast  signifies,  ac- 
cording to  Griniiii,  "One  whose  office  it  was 
to  spread  the  tables  and  couches,  to  arrange 
the  courses  of  the  feast,  and  to  taste  before 
others  the  dishes  and  wines."  To  biiu,  there- 
fore, the  servants  were  properly  directed  to 
bear  the  first  cuj)  of  water  now  become  wine; 
and  for  hiui  it  was  specially  natural  and  suita- 
ble to  commend  the  unusual  excellence  of  the^ 
wine.  This  be  did,  without  knowing  by 
whom  it  was  provided;  and  therefore  his 
testimony  was  regarded  by  the  Evangelist 
as  conclusive.  The  expression,  whe?i  men 
have  drirnk  freely,  is  part  of  the  ruler's  de- 
scription of  a  common  custom  which  rested, 
perhaps,  on  the  idea  that  men  somewhat 
afl^ected  by  the  wine  they  have  drunken,  are 
less  particular,  than  at  first,  about  the  quality 
of  what  they  drink.  The  ruler's  remark  has 
no  reference  to  the  actual  state  of  the  guests 
before  him  ;  it  only  expresses  his  surprise  and 
pleasure  that  the  good  wine  had  been  brought 
iniit  so  late  an  hour  of  the  feast. 

11.  This  beginning  of  miracles  did 
Jesus,  etc.  Better,  This  beginning  of  the 
signs  did  Jrsus,  etc.  The  miracles  of  Christ 
are  designated  by  four  different  terms  in  the 
Gospels,  viz.:  (1)  Works,  (epya),  because  they 
were  wrought  by  Jesus  as  a  part  of  his  Mes- 
sianic service  (comp.  Matt.  11:  1;  John  5: 
20,  36;  7:  3;  10:  38;  14:11  sq.  ;  15:24). 
(2)  Povters,  or  effects  of  power  ({wifiew),  be- 
cause they  were  wrought  by  divine  power 
(comp.  Matt.  11:  20,  23;  Mark  6:  2,  5;  9:  39; 
Lake  10:   13;    19:  37).     (3)  Miracles  {ripara., 


miracula),  because  they  were  events  fitted  to 
excite  the  wonder  of  beholders  (comp.  Matt. 
24:  24;  Mark  13:  22;  John  4 :  48).  (4)  Signs, 
((n)iu.€ia),  because  they  were  indications  of 
God's  will,  "revelations  of  truth  through  the 
symbolism  of  outward  acts"  (comp.  Matt. 
12:  38  sq. ;  16:  1,  4;  Mark  8:  11  sq. ;  16:  17, 
20;  Luke  11:  16,  29;  23:  8;  John  2:  18,  23; 
3:  2;  4:  54;  6:2,  14,  and  often).  The  word 
signs  is,  therefore,  in  some  respects,  the  most 
important  naine  given  to  these  extraordinaiy 
deeds  of  Christ.  And  the  changing  of  water 
into  wine  was  the  beginning  of  the  signs 
which  Jesus  wrought  in  revealing  his  divine 
power  and  mission.  It  was  one  which  mani- 
fested his  glory,  and  increased  his  disciples' 
faith  in  him  as  the  Son  of  God  and  the  King 
of  Israel.  The  evidence  for  this  marvelous 
sign  is  thus  characterized  by  Kitto:  "First, 
the  vessels  used  were  such  as  were  standing 
by  for  ordinary  purposes,  precluding  any 
idea  of  collusion ;  then  thej-  were  not  wine- 
vessels,  but  waterpots,  so  that  it  could  not  be 
suggested  that  there  was  some  sediment  of 
wine  remaining  in  them,  which  gave  a  flavor 
to  the  water  poured  in  ;  .  .  .  then  there  is  the 
intervention  of  the  servants  in  filling  the  ves- 
sels; but  for  which  it  might  have  appeared 
.  .  .  that  the  wine  had  coiue  from  some  un- 
expected quarter;  lastly,  there  is  the  evidence 
of  the  .  .  .  'ruler  of  the  feast,' who,  knowing 
nothing  of  the  history  of  this  wine,  pro- 
nounced upon  it  that  it  is  not  only  real  wine, 
but  good  wine — better  than  had  yet  been 
produced  in  the  feast.  Nothing  can  be  more 
complete  than  this  evidence." 

Again,  this  first  miracle  of  Jesus  showed 
his  sj-mpath}^  with  mankind,  and  his  piirpose 
to  honor  and  ennoble  all  the  relations  and 
enjoyments  of  life.  Had  he  been  a  teacher 
of  as(!eticism,  this  miracle  would  have  been 
incongruous;  but  not  so  when  we  understand 
the  whole  purpose  of  his  mission.  He  came 
to  quicken,  to  exalt,  to  spiritualize  all  things, 


Ch.  IL] 


JOHN. 


87 


12  After  this  he  went  down  to  Capernaum,  he,  and  I   12      After  this  he  went  down   to  Capernaum,  lie,  and 
his  mother,  and  "his  bretliren,  and  his  disciples;  and  his  mother,  and /(i.s  hrethrcn,  and  his  disciples:  and 

they  continued  there  not  many  days.  |         there  they  abode  not  many  days. 

a  Matt.  12:  46. 


and  this  miracle  was  a  symbol  of  his  work. 
Two  things  are  worthy  of  special  notice ; 
Firxt,  that  Jesus  by  this  sign  honored  marriage 
and  all  the  relations  of  domestic  life;  and, 
second,  that  he  recognized  the  propriety  of 
doing  something  for  enjoyment  as  well  as 
for  sustenance.  Hence,  a  Christian  father 
is  warranted  in  seeking  for  liis  family  more 


12.  Visit  to  Capernaum. 

12.  After  this,  etc.  The  first  note  of  time 
here  employed  is  general,  but  it  suggests  a 
comparatively  brief  intervtil  between  tlie  wed 
ding  and  the  going  down  to  Capernaum. 
A  few  days  at  most  were  probably  sj)ent  in  a 
visit  to  the  home  in  Nazareth  ;  and  then  the 
Saviour,  at  the  head  of  his  little  company  of 


^m^miH^' 


/r- 


SUPPOSED  SITE  OF  CAPERNAUM. 


than  the  necessaries  of  life;  some  of  its  luxu- 
ries may  at  times  be  enjoyed. 

It  may  also  be  remarked,  that  this  miracle 
lays  no  foundation  for  the  papal  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation.  For,  according  to  John, 
tlie  new  substance  was  recognized  and  identi- 
fied by  the  senses  of  men,  while,  according  to 
the  papal  doctrine,  the  new  substance  in  the 
cucharist,  the  real  presence,  cannot  be  thus 
known.  In  the  one  case,  properties  and  sub- 
stance answer  to  each  other  after,  as  well  as 
before,  the  miracle;  in  the  other  they  do  not. 
In  the  one  case,  appearance  corresponds  with 
ix-ality;  in  the  otlier  case,  it  does  not,  but  is 
illusory.  The  Christian  fact  is,  therefore,  no 
argument  for  the  papal  theory. 


kindred  and  disciples,  went  down  to  Caper- 
naum, with  a  view  to  joining  a  larger  com- 
pany, and  going  up  to  the  passover  in  Jeru- 
salem. He  is  said  to  have  gone  down  to 
Capernaum;  and  the  expression  is  exact, 
whether  his  journey  was  from  Nazareth,  or 
from  Cana  of  Galilee.  The  distance  from 
Nazareth  to  the  place  of  destination  could 
not  have  been  less  than  sixteen  miles,  while 
the  distance  from  Cana  may  have  been  some- 
what less. 

The  site  of  Capernaum  has  not  been  satis- 
factorilj' ascertained  ;  but  it  was  certainly  on 
the  western  side  of  Lake  Gennesaret,  and  as 
far  north  as  the  northern  side  of  the  plain 
from    which   the   lake   took   its   name.       Dr. 


88 

JOI 

IN. 

[Ch. 

II. 

13  ' 

■weut 

And 
up  to 

the  Jews'  passover 
.lerusalsm, 

was  at 

baud, 

and  Jesus 

1 

13 

A 

ad  the 

passover 

Of 

Ihe 

Jews 

was 

at  band 

and 

a  Ex 

12:  14 

Deui.  16:  1,  l(i 

;ver 

2a: 

ch.  5:  1 

;  11  :  55. 

Robinson  supposed  that  it  was  situated  at 
Kahn  Minyeh,  near  the  lake,  and  just  on  the 
northern  border  of  the  phiin  of  Gennesaret, 
while  Dr.  Thompson  believes  that  it  was  situ- 
ated at  Tell  Hiim,  about  three  miles  north  of 
Khan  Minyeh  (eomp.  Robinson,  "  Biblical 
Researches"  etc.,  II.  403  sq.  406  aq.  ;  Merrill, 
"East  of  the  Jordan,"  p.  457;  Thompson, 
^'The  Land  and  the  Book,"  I.,  pp.  542-548; 
"Warren,  "Recovery  of  Jerusalem,"  pp.  342 
sq.  ;  Tristram,  "  Land  of  Israel,"  pp.  428  sq., 
ed.  3). 

In  respect  to  the  brethren,  or  brothers,  of 
Jesus,  it  has  been  conjectured  (l)that  they 
were  in  reality  his  cousins,  tlie  children  of  a 
sister  of  Mary,  his  mother,  or  of  a  brother  of 
Joseph,  his  reputed  father — an  interpretation 
which  was  first  proposed  by  Jerome,  in  the 
interest,  probably,  of  the  perpetual  virginity 
of  Mary.  (2)  That  they  were  children  of 
Joseph  by  a  former  marriage,  and  therefore, 
nominally,  half  brothers  of  Jesus ;  an  inter- 
pretation which  was  proposed  b}'  Epiphanius, 
also  designed  to  save  the  perpetual  virginity 
of  Mary.  (B)  That  they  were  children  of 
Joseph  and  Mary,  younger  than  Jesus,  and 
therefore  his  brotliers,  as  born  of  the  same 
mother.  The  question  of  their  relationship 
to  Jesus  is  a  diflBeult  one  to  answer;  but  the 
reasons  for  taking  the  word  brothers  in  its 
most  natural  sense,  as  denoting  sons  of  Joseph 
and  Mary,  seem  to  outweigh  those  for  any 
other  view.  This  we  say:  (1)  Because  the 
word  nephews  or  kindred  is  never  used  by 
the  sacred  writers  instead  of  brothers,  to  de- 
note the  persons  referred  to,  viz. :  James,  and 
Joseph,  and  Simon,  and  Judas  (Matt,  is :  55);  also 
because  sisters  are  mentioned,  without  any 
hint  that  they  were  more  distant  relatives. 
(2)  Because  Luke  (2=7)  says  of  Mary,  that 
"she  brought  forth  her  first-born  son,"  when 
she  gave  birth  to  Jesus;  and  this  language 
implies  that  she  had  other  sons,  born  after  the 
birth  of  Jesus.  His  brothers  seem  to  have 
gone  no  farther  than  Capernaum  with  Jesus. 

The  Evangelist  gives  no  account  of  what 
Jesus  did  in  the  not  many  days  of  his  present 
sojourn  in  Capernaum.  This  silence  may  be 
accounted  for,  if  needful,  by  assuming  that 
John  took  the  opportunity  of  spending  a  few 


days  at  his  own  home,  and  so  was  not  an  e3'e- 
witness  of  the  Saviour's  ministry.  But  the 
works  of  Jesus  at  this  time  were  probably'  re- 
ferred to  by  himself,  when  he  addressed  the 
people  of  Nazareth,  on  his  next  visit  to  that 
place:  "Ye  will  surely  say  unto  me  this 
proverb,  Phj'sician,  heal  thyself:  whatsoever 
we  have  heard  done  in  Capernaum,  do  also 
here  in  thy  country."  (Luke  4:  231. 

13-2.5.  Journey  to  Jerusalem,  and 
Purification  of  the  Temple.  First  Pass- 
over 171  Christ' s  ministry,  April  11,  A.  D.  27. 

13.  And  the  Jews'  passover  was  at 
hand.  For  an  account  of  the  Jewish  passr 
over,  see  E.X.  12:  1-49;  Deut.  16:  1-8.  That 
it  is  called  the  Jews'  passover  has  been 
supposed  to  imply  the  existence  of  a  recog- 
nized "Christian  Passover"  at  the  time  when 
the  Gospel  was  written  (Westcott).  But  is 
not  the  expression  fairly  explained  by  the 
circumstance  that  the  writer  had  in  mind 
Gentile  readers?  Or  by  the  fact  that  he  had 
lived  so  long  out  of  Palestine,  and  with  Gen- 
tile Christians,  as  to  have  appropriated  their 
manner  of  referring  to  the  chosen  people? — 
And  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  The 
site  of  Jeru.salem  was  elevated  above  that  of 
most  places  in  Palestine,  and  ther-^fore  it  was 
natural  to  speak  of  going  up  to  it  (comp.  5:1; 
7:  8,  10;  11:  55;  12:  20;  Luke  2:  42,  sq.). 
Whether  the  political  and  religious  eminence 
of  the  city  contributed  any  influence  in  favor 
of  this  phraseology,  is  uncertain.  The  road 
by  which  Jesus  in  all  j^robability  went  to  the 
holy  city,  is  thus  described  by  Merrill:  "This 
road  crossed  thu  Jordan  immediately  below 
the  Liike  of  Tiberias,  and  followed  down  the 
east  side  until  just  below  the  Jabbok,  where 
it  recrossed  and  followed  down  the  west  side 
to  Jericho.  There  are,  just  below  the  mouth 
of  the  Jabbok,  the  remains  of  an  ancient 
bridge  which  there  is  reason  to  believe 
existed  in  Christ's  time.  Along  this  road  the 
Christians  fled  to  Pella,  their  place  of  refuge 
during  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem ;  and 
along  this  road,  also,  a  portion  of  the  army  of 
Titus  marched,  on  its  way  to  besiege  the 
holy  cit3\  So  little  has  been  known  of  this 
region,  that  the  Christian  has,  no  doubt, 
thought  of  Christ  as  passing  along  a  lonely 


Ch. 

II.] 

JOHN. 

89 

14  "And  found  in  the  teiiii) 
and  sheep  and  doves,  and  the 
ting: 

le  those  that 
changers  of 

sold  oxen     14  .Tesus 
money  sit-          temp 

went  u 
e  those 

p  to  Jerusalem, 
tl^at  sold  oxen 

An 

and 

d  he  found 
sheep  and 

in  the 
doves, 

a.  Matt.  21 :  12  ;  Mark  11 :  15 ;  Luke  19 :  45. 

road  when  ho  went  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem 
b^' this  valley  route;  but  there  could  be  no 
greater  mistake.  In  some  of  the  towns  that  I 
have  indicated  as  existing  here,  our  Saviour 
would  pass  the  night;  and  as  Pella  was  one  of 


Jericho.'  The  place  derives  its  hostile  cliar- 
acter  from  its  terrible  wildness  and  desolation. 
If  we  might  conceive  of  the  ocean  as  being 
suddenly  congealed  and  petrified  when  its 
waves    are  tossed  mountain  high,  and  dash- 


KOAD   FROM   JERICHO  TO   JEKl'SALEM. 


them,  it  is  pleasant  to  reflect  that  the  good  I 
seed  sown  bj'  him  in  person,  took  root  and  | 
brought  forth  such  abundant  fruit,  that  when,  i 
thirty  or  more  years  after  his  death,  the  storm 
of  war  swept  over  the  land,  his  followers  and  , 
disciples    found    an     asylum     in    this    very  I 
city."     From   Jericho  the  road   passes  by  a 
steep  and  wild  ascent  up  to  Jerusalem.     Ofi 
the  region  through  which  it  winds  upward, 
Hackett  says;    "Hardly   a  season  passes  in 
which  some  luckless  wayfarer  is  not  killed  or 
robbed   in   'going  down  from   Jerusalem   to' 


ing  in  wild  confusion  against  each  other,  we 
should  then  have  some  idea  of  the  aspect  of 
the  desert  in  which  the  Saviour  has  placed  so 
truthfully  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan. 
The  ravines,  the  almost  inaccessible  cliffs,  the 
caverns,  furnish  admirable  lurking  places  for 
robbers ;  they  can  rush  forth  unexpectedly 
upon  their  victims,  and  escape  as  soon  almost 
beyond  the  possibility  of  pursuit"  ("Illustra- 
tions of  Scripture,"  p.  207). 

14.  And  found  in  the  temple,  etc.     The 
word  translated  temple  {'upov)  signifies   not 


90 


JOHN. 


[Cii.  II. 


15  And  wheu  he  had  made  a  scoui'ge  of  small  c  irds, 
hedrove  them  all  out  of  the  temple,  and  the  sheep, 
and  the  oxen ;  and  poured  out  the  changers'  money, 
and  overthrew  the  tables  ; 

16  And  said  unto  them  that  sold  doves,  Take  these 
things  hence;  make  not  "my  Father's  house  a  house 
of  merchandise. 

17  And  his  disciples  remembered  that  it  was  written, 
*The  zeal  of  thine  house  hath  eaten  me  up. 


15  and  the  changers  of  money  sitting:  and  he  made  a 
scourge  of  cords,  and  cast  all  out  of  the  temple,  both 
the  sheep  and  the  oxen  ;  and  he  poured  out  the 
changers'  money,  and  overthrew  their  tables ;  and 

16  to  them  that  sold  the  doves  he  said.  Take  these 
things  hence;  make  not  my  Father's  house  a  house 

17  of  mercliandise.  His  disciples  remembered  that  it 
was  written,  Zeal  for  thy  house  shall  eat  me  up. 


1  Lu!:e2:49....6  Ps.  69:  9. 


merely  the  central  edifice,  wherein  were  the 
holj'  place  and  the  holy  of  holies,  but  that 
edifice  with  all  its  surrounding  courts,  includ- 
ing the  Court  of  the  Gentiles,  in  which  the 
noisy  and  irreverent  traders  were  now  btisj'. 
Yet  it  has  been  well  said  by  Schatf  (in  Lange) 
that  the  traflSc  here  described  "  was  no  doubt 
justified  or  excused,  as  a  convenience  to  for- 
eign Jews  for  the  purchase  of  sacrificial 
beasts,  incense,  oil,  and  the  sacred  shekel  or 
double  drachma,  in  which  the  temple-tax 
had  to  be  paid"  (ex.30;13).  Men  who  dese- 
crate holy  things  are  commonly  able  to  oifer 
some  plausible  reason  for  their  course. 

15.  And  when  he  had  made  a  scourge 
of  small  cords,  etc.  It  need  not  be  sup- 
posed that  Jesus  used  the  scourge  upon  any  of 
the  men,  even  if  he  did  upon  the  animals 
■which  they  had  brought  into  the  sacred  en- 
closure. But  there  is,  strictly  speaking,  no 
evidence  that  he  used  it  on  the  latter.  The 
scourge  may  have  been  only  a  sign  of  the  in- 
dignation which  glowed  with  holy  fervor  in 
the  soul  of  Jesus,  and  of  the  punishment 
which  was  justly  deserved  bj'  men  thus  dese- 
crating the  temple;  while  it  was  the  divine 
authority,  revealed  by  his  look  and  bearing, 
which  overawed  the  traders,  and  the  dumb 
beasts  as  well.  For  once  the  second  Adam 
took  the  place  of  authority  over  sheep  and 
cattle  that  was  given  to  the  first  Adam  before 
till!   fall.     Instead   of    and   read    (as  in  Kev. 

■  Yvr.)  both  the  sheep  and  the  oxen.  And 
poured  out,  etc.  This,  too,  must  have  been 
done  under  the  impulse  of  a  commanding  in- 
dignation, more  divine  than  human;  other- 
wise the  strange  intruder  would  siirelj'  have 
been  interrupted  in  his  work.  With  what 
surprise  and  awe  must  the  disciples  have 
watched  the  movements  of  their  Master! 

16.  And  said  unto  them  that  sold  doves. 
Literally,  that  sold  the  doves — namely,  the 
doves  that  were  referred  to  in  the  preceding 
verse.  Take  these  things  hence  ;  because 
they  were  such  as  could  not  be  driven  out  of 


the  sacred  precincts,  but  must  be  carried 
thence.  Tlie  doves  were  doubtless  kept  in 
baskets  or  cages;  and  at  the  command  of 
Jesus,  their  owners  bore  them  reluctantly 
away.  Then  the  Son  stood  in  the  court  of 
his  Father's  house,  which  had  been  reclaimed, 
for  the  time,  from  the  desecrations  of  avarice, 
and  hushed  to  silence,  as  became  the  place  of 
prayer. 

The  Synoptical  Gospels  describe  a  very 
similar  expulsion  of  traders  from  the  temple 
b^'  Jesus  a    few  days  before  his  crucifixion 

(Matt.  21:  12,  13;    Mark  II:  15-17;    Luke  19:  46-47).         Some 

therefore  insist  that  there  was  but  one  expul- 
sion, either  John  or  the  Synoptists  being  in 
error  as  to  the  time  when  it  occurred. 
Against  this  view  it  may,  however,  be  re- 
marked :  (1)  That  the  act  was  one  that  might 
properly  be  repeated ;  (2)  That  the  particu- 
lars diifer  as  much  as  could  be  expected  if  a 
second  expulsion  took  place ;  (3)  That  the 
language  of  Jesus  is  naturally  much  severer 
in  the  second  instance  than  in  the  first,  for 
"a  den  of  thieves"  is  a  worse  place  than  a 
house  of  merchandise ;  and  (4)  That  the 
date  of  each  expulsion  is  virtually  given,  sep- 
arating them  from  each  other  by  almost  the 
whole  public  ministry  of  Christ.  There  can 
be  no  reasonable  doubt  of  the  repetition  of 
the  great  lesson  taught  by  Christ  so  near  the 
beginning  of  his  ministry. 

17.  And  his  disciples  remembered. 
And  does  not  belong  to  the  true  text,  ac- 
cording to  Tisch,  Treg,  Westcott  and  Hurt, 
(with  N  B  L  T*>  X  etc.).  The  zeal  of  thine 
house  hath  eaten  me  up.  The  evidence 
of  early  manuscripts  (X  A  B  L  p  T^  X  r  a  A  n) 
shows  that  the  verb  should  be  in  the  future 
tense,  and  the  Revised  Version  expresses 
therefore  the  sense  of  the  original :  The  zeal 
of  thy  house  shall  eat  me  up.  This  passage  of 
the  Psalins  (69:9)  came  into  the  minds  of 
the  disciples  as  they  gazed  with  astonish- 
ment upon  Jesus  during  this  remarkable 
scene.     The  only  deviation  from  the  sense  of 


Ch.  II.] 


JOHN. 


91 


18  Then  answered  the  Jews  and  said  unto  him, 
"What  sign  shewest  thou  unto  us,  seeing  that  thou 
doest  these  tilings? 

19  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  tlieui,  'Destroy 
this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up. 

21)  TliLMi  said  the  Jews,  Forty  and  six  years  was  this 
temple  in  building,  and  wilt  thou  rear  it  up  in  three 
days? 


18  The  .Tews  therefore  answered  and  said  unto  hira, 
What  sign  shewest  thou  unto  us,  seeing  that  thou 

19  doest  these  things?    Jesus  answered  and  said  nnto 
them.  Destroy  this  Hemple,  and  in  three  days  I  will 

20  raise  it  up.     The  Jews  therefore  said,  Forty  and  s.x 
years  was  this  ^  temple  iu  building,  and  will  thou 


a  Matt.  12  :  38  ;  ch.  6  :  30 6  Malt.  '26 :  61 ;  27  :  40 ;  Mark  U :  58  ;  15 :  29. 1  Or,  sanctuary. 


the  Hebrew  passage,  is  in  the  sense  of  the 
verb.  Perrowne  translates  the  pas.sage  thus: 
"  Zeal  for  thine  house  hath  consumed  me"; 
while  the  Evangelist,  regarding  the  sufferer 
of  the  Psalm  as  a  type  of  Christ,  and  his  bm- 
guage  as  really  prophetic,  may  have  used  the 
future  tense  as  expressive  of  its  deepest  mean- 
ing. Says  Perowne:  "Similar  expressions 
concerning  the  prophets  will  be  found,  Jer.  6: 
11;  15:  17;  20:  9;  23:  9;  fizek  3:  14.  This 
which  was  true  in  various  imperfect  degrees 
of  these  .servants  of  God,  was,  in  a  far  higher 
sense,  true  of  the  only-begotten  Son,  who 
could  say:  'I  seek  not  mine  own  glory.' 
Hence,  when  he  purged  the  temple,  the  disci- 
ples could  not  help  thinking  of  these  words  of 
tiie  Psalm  as  finding  their  best  application  in 
him."  Lange  supposed  that  "here  for  the 
first  time  met  and  struck  them  the  conflict  of 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  with  the  spirit  of  the 
people,  the  terrible,  life-staking  earnestne.ss 
in  the  appearance  of  Christ,  which  threatened 
to  bring  incalculable  dangers  after  it"  ;  while 
Alford  says  that  the  eating  up  (Kara^xiyeLv) 
"spoken  of  in  that,  passion  P.salm,  was  the 
marring  and  wasting  of  the  Saviour's  frame, 
by  his  zeal  for  God  and  God's  church,  which 
resulted  in  the  buflTeting,  the  scourging,  the 
cross."  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  zeal 
spoken  of  both  consumed  and  imperiled 
the  life  of  its  po.ssessor;  both  devoured  his 
strength  by  its  own  fervor,  and  provoked  the 
wrath  of  his  enemies. 

18.  Then  answered  the  Jbavs,  etc.  Bet- 
ter: The  Jews  ansivered  therefore,  etc.  By 
the  Jews  must  be  understood  some  of  the 
leaders  or  rulers  of  the  people  in  religious 
affairs.  They  were  probably  displeased  by 
his  claim  of  special  Sonship  to  God,  involved 
in  the  words,  Make  not  my  Father's  house 
a  house  of  merchandise  ;  and  they  plainly 
intimated  that  his  conduct  could  only  be  jus- 
tified to  their  minds  by  a  sign  from  heaven. 
Moreover,  such  was  their  character,  that  their 
language  was  a  natural  result  of  his  act  and 
word ;  hence  the  connective  therefore.     The  ' 


word  answered  is  sometimes  used  by  the  Evan- 
gelists, when  the  saying  that  follows  has  ref- 
erence to  something  done,  or  to  something  in 
the  mind  of  the  person  addressed  (c.  g.,  Matt. 
11:  25;  17:  4;  28:  5;  Mark  10:  51;  12:  35; 
Luke  1:  60;  13:  14). 

19.  .  .  .  Destroy  this  temple.  Here  the 
word  translated  temple  (i/aos,  not  Upof),  re- 
fer.s  to  the  central  building,  exclusive  of  the 
surrounding  courts.  The  destroy  (Axaare)  is 
neither  permissive  nor  provocative,  but  either 
prophetic,  destroy  (as  you  will),  or  subjunct- 
ive, if  you  destroy.  I  prefer  the  latter  (comp. 
Winer  ^  44,  2;  Buttman  ^  .  139,  p.  227).  In 
three  days  means  within  that  period  of  time. 
The  expression,  perhaps  because  of  its  enig- 
matical character,  was  remembered  by  the 
Jews,  and,  by  a  malignant  perversion,  intro- 
duced as  testimony  against  Jesus:  "This  fel- 
low said,  I  am  able  to  destroy  the  temple 
of  God,  and  build  it  in  three  days."  (Matt. 
26; 61;  Mark u. 58).  Fi)r  the  interpretation,  see 
verse  21,  below.  It  is,  however,  noteworthy 
that  the  resurrection  is  hero  represented  by 
Christ  as  his  own  work. 

20.  Forty  and  six  years,  etc.  A  more 
exact  rendering  would  read:  In  forty  and 
six  years  loas  this  temple  built;  and  wilt 
thou  in  three  days  raise  it  up  ?  The  em- 
phatic words  of  the  first  clause  are,  forty  and 
six  years  ;  those  of  the  second,  thou  (uttered 
with  a  tone  of  incredulity  and  perhaps  mock- 
ery) and  three  days.  Thus:  In  forty  and 
six  years  was  this  temple  built;  and  wilt 
thou,  in  three  days,  raise  it  up?  The  order  of 
the  Greek  words  is  very  significant. 

"Thero  <an  be  no  doubt  that  this  refers  to 
the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  by  Herod ;  it 
cannot  mean  the  second  temple,  built  after 
the  captivity;  for  this  was  finished  in  twenty 
years  (B.  c.  535  to  b.  c.  515).  Herod,  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  his  reign  (Joseph.  "Ant." 
XV.  11.  1),  began  to  reconstruct  the  temple 
on  a  larger  and  more  splendid  scale  (A.  IT. 
C.  734).  The  work  was  not  finished  till  long 
after  his  death,   till  A.  U.  C.  818.     It  is  in- 


92 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  II. 


21  But  he  spake  "of  the  temple  of  his  body. 

22  Wheu  therefore  he  was  liseu  I'rom  the  dead,  'his 
disciples  reiueiuheied  tliut  he  bad  said  tliis  unto  tbciu ; 
and  ihey  believed  the  Scripture,  and  the  word  which 
Jej>iis  had  said. 


21  raise  it  up  in  three  days?    But  he  spake  of  the 

22  1  temple  ot  his  bcidy.  Wlieu  tlierefore  he  was  raised 
from  tlie  dead,  his  disciples  rcuieiubered  llial  he 
spake  this;  and  they  believed  the  scripture,  and  the 
word  which  Jesus  had  said. 


I  Col.  2:9;  Hel).  8:2;  So  1  Cor.  3 :  16  ;  6 :  19 ;  2  Cor.  6  :  16 6  Luke  24 :  8.- 


Or,  sanctuary. 


ferred  from  Josephus  ("Ant"  XV.  11.5-6) 
that  it  WHS  begun  in  the  month  Chisleu,  A.  U. 
C.  734.  And  if  the  passover  at  which  this 
remark  was  madp  was  that  of  A.  U.  C.  TWO, 
tiieu  forty-five  years  and  some  months  have 
ehipsfed,  whicli,  according  to  the  Jewish  mode 
of  reckoning  (p.  1381),  would  be  spoken  of  as 
'forty  and  six  years.'  "  (vSniith's  Diet,  of  the 
Bible,  Jesus  Christ,  p.  1383). 

21.  But  he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his 
body.  As  might  have  been  expected,  this 
interpretation  of  Christ's  words  is  pro- 
nounced erroneous  hy  many  liberal  exposi- 
tors. Even  Lticke,  who  holds  the  writer  of 
this  Gospel  to  have  been  tiie  Apostle  John, 
and  who  appreciates  very  higlily  his  work, 
rejects  this  statement  as  incorrect;  for  he  is 
unable  to  believe  that  Jesus  referred  to  his 
own  death  at  so  early  a  day,  and  in  terms  so 
enigmatical.  But  we  have  already  seen,  in 
the  cases  of  Peter  and  Nathanael  (i :  «.  *7), 
that  Jesus  could  read  the  hearts  of  men  with 
marvelous  accuracy,  and,  therefore,  it  is  vain 
to  say  that  he  could  not  have  detected  in 
these  Jews  the  germs  of  deadly  hatred.  In- 
deed, there  may  have  been  something  in  their 
look  and  tone  which  foreboded  evil,  which 
reminded  him  of  the  hour  when  he  would  be 
"  led  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,"'  and  which 
occasioned  his  profound  but  enigmatical 
response.  They  belonged  to  a  class  of  men 
to  whom  no  sign  was  to  be  given,  save  the 
sign  of  the  prophet  Jonah  (Matt.  12 :  39,  w). 

Yet  the  answer  of  Christ  must  have  ar- 
rested their  attention  by  its  very  strangeness 
and  apparent  extravagance ;  for  nothing 
could  have  seemed  to  them  more  absurd  than 
the  hypothesis  of  their  destroying  the  temple, 
u  less  it  were  the  assumption  of  Jesus  that 
he  would  raise  it  up  in  three  days.  It  was 
an  answer  therefore  which  would  stick  in 
their  memory;  and  if  it  bad  an.y  occult  sense, 
to  be  revealed  by  later  events,  that  sense 
nught  at  last  be  jierceived  by  them  and  rec- 
ognized by  them  as  a  sign  from  heaven. 

Such  a  sense  it  had.  and  such  a  prophecy  it 
was.  For  as  the  temple  was  God's  house,  in 
which  he  dwelt  among  the  people  and  mani- 


fested his  glory,  so  was  the  body  of  Christ 
God's  house,  in  which  he  dwelt  and  mani- 
fested his  glory.  The  temple  on  Moriah  was, 
in  fact,  but  a  symbol  or  shadow  of  the  true 
temple.  For  Christ  could  say,  "I  am  in 
the  Father  and  the  Father  in  me"  (io:38;U: 
n),  and  "he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the 
Father"  (u:9).  "In  him  dwelleth  all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily"  (Coi2:9). 
His  reference,  therefore,  was  to  the  substance 
by  means  of  the  shadow.  He  knew  that,  by 
and  by,  they  would  destroy  the  substance, 
and  thereby  bring  to  an  end  the  shadow  also; 
and  he  jiurposed  to  raise  up  the  true  temple 
in  less  than  three  days  from  the  time  of  its 
dissolution. 

If  it  be  urged  against  this  interpretation 
that,  not  Jesus  himself,  but  the  Father,  raised 
the  body  of  our  Lord  from  the  dead,  it  may 
be  answered  that  we  need  not  suppose  that 
Christ  intended  by  this  expression  to  separate 
his  own  action  fnmi  the  Father's  (comp.  5:  19 
sq.).  The  Father  as  well  as  the  Spirit  may 
properlj"^  be  regarded  as  acting  wit  1  the  Son 
and  in  behalf  of  the  Son.  Their  action  is  in- 
separable (see  10:  18). 

It  may  be  added  that  the  pronoun  he 
(eiceri/o?)  is  one  that  tends  to  separate  Jesus 
from  the  writer,  or  from  some  other  party. 
In  this  case,  the  separation  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  neither  John  nor  the  Jews  shared 
with  Jesus  this  knowledge  of  the  reference  of 
his  words.  "St.  John  seems  to  look  back 
again  upon  the  far  distant  scene,  as  inter- 
preted by  his  later  knowledge,  and  to  realize 
how  the  Master  foresaw  that  which  was 
whollj'^  hidden  from  the  disciples." — (West- 
cott). 

22.  When  therefore  he  was  risen  from 
the  dead,  etc.  The  deep  and  prophetic  im- 
port of  this  saying  was  not  understood  by  the 
disciples  of  Christ  at  the  time.  They  did  not 
reflect  much  upon  it,  or  question  their  Lord 
as  to  its  meaning.  But  after  his  resurrection, 
it  was  remembered  by  them,  and  interpret  d 
as  .John  interprets  it.  Then,  too,  it  increased 
their  faith,  even  as  it  was  recalled  in  faith. 
A  great  light  was  reflected  upon  it  from  his 


Ch.  II.] 


JOHN. 


93 


23  Now  when  he  was  in  Jerusalem  at  the  passover, 
in  the  feast-Aiy,  many  believed  in  his  name,  when  they 
saw  the  miracles  which  he  did. 

24  But  Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  unto  them,  be- 
cause he  knew  all  7)icn, 

2.5  And  needed  not  that  any  should  testify  of  man ; 
for  "  he  knew  what  was  in  man. 


23  Now  when  he  was  in  Jerusalem  at  the  passover, 
during  the  feast,  many  believed  on  his  name,  be- 

24  holding  his  signs  which  he  did.  But  Jesus  did  not 
trust  himself  unto  them,  for  that  he  knew  all  men, 

25  and  because  he  needed  not  that  any  should  bi/ar 
witness  concerning  ^  man ;  for  he  himself  knew 
what  wiis  in  man. 


a  1  Sam.  16  :  7  ;  1  CbroD.  28  :  9  ;  Matt.  9:4;  Maik  2:8;  ch.  6 :  61 ;  16 :  30 ;  Acts  1 :  2i ;  Rev.  2 : 


-I  Or,  a  vum ;  for  .  .  .  the  i 


raised  body,  as  he  communed  with  them  dur- 
ing forty  days.  Then  also,  as  never  before, 
they  believed  the  Scripture. 

But  what  is  meant  by  the  Scripture? 
Either  some  part  or  passage  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament which  foreshadowed  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  the  Messiah  (Ps.  i6;]o),  or 
the  entire  Old  Testament,  regarded  as  a  con- 
nected whole,  which  was  proved  to  be  true 
by  the  fulfillment  of  an  important  part  of  it. 
The  latter  is,  probably,  the  Evangelist's 
thought. 

While  Christ  was  with  his  disciples  in  the 
flesh,  the  latter  appear  to  have  been  singu- 
larly dull  or  incredulous  when  he  referred 
to  his  approaching  death  and  resurrection. 
For  many  reasons  the  meaning  of  the  Scrip- 
ture, when  it  foretold  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
and  the  glory  that  should  follow,  was  hidden 
from  their  sight.  But  when  Jesus  had  been 
crucified  and  raised  from  the  dead,  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Scripture  flashed  upon  their  souls 
with  surprising  clearness.  They  saw  at  once 
that  the  language  of  Isaiah  (ch.  53^,  and  of 
many  other  prophets,  had  described  both  the 
suffering  and  the  triumph  of  the  Messiah — 
the  latter  being  indeed  a  consequence  of  the 
former.  But  they  saw  the  fulfillment  of 
Scripture  in  the  former,  as  well  as  in  the  lat- 
ter respect,  yet  they  saw  it  in  neither  till  they 
saw  it  in  both.  Not  till  Christ  had  risen 
from  the  dead,  were  they  able  to  perceive  the 
necessity  of  his  dying  at  all.  And  when  he 
had  risen  from  the  dead,  they  perceived  that 
his  resurrection  and  eternal  glory  were  as 
fully  implied  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  were 
his  sufferings  and  death.  His  disciples, 
etc.  According  to  the  best  editors  and  manu- 
scripts, the  second  clause  should  read:  his 
disciples  remembered  that  he  spake  this — 
unto  them  being  no  part  of  the  original  text. 
The  tense  also  of  the  Greek  verb  (i\ey(v)  sug- 
gests a  repetition  or  dwelling  upon  the  words 
(comp.  5:  18;  6:  6,  65;  8:  27,  31;  12  33),  which 
John  distinctly  recalls  in  giving  his  account 
of  the  scene. 


23-25.    Christ's  Mighty  Works  in  Je- 
rusalem, AND  THEIR  EfI'ECT  ON  MaNY  OF 

THE  People. 

23.  Now  when  he  was  in  Jerusalem , 

etc.  Meyer  holds  that  the  words  in  Jeru- 
salem denote  place,  at  the  passover,  time?, 
and  in  the  feast,  occupation.  Though  Jesus 
declined  to  do  any  miracle  as  a  sign  to  the 
Jews  who  questioned  him  as  to  his  authority, 
it  appears  from  this  verse  that  he  wrought 
several  miracles  during  this  passover,  in 
Jerusalem.  We  say  "  several,  "^/-s^,  because 
the  plural  miracles,  (or  signs)  is  used,  and, 
secondly,  because  the  imperfect  tense  (not  did 
butwffls  doing,  eTroiei)  suggests  continued  action 
of  that  kind.  The.se  signs  led  many  to  believe 
that  Jesus  was  the  promised  Chrisi.  But 
their  faith  was  mere  belief  on  the  ground  of 
evidence,  implying  no  radical  change  of 
character.  It  might  lead  to  further  inquiry, 
as  in  the  case  of  Nicodemus,  but  it  was  not  in 
itself  a  proof  of  willingness  to  serve  GoJ  by 
forsaking  all  to  follow  Jesus.  To  believe  on 
one's  name  is  to  believe  on  what  that  name 
represents,  whether  of  character  or  of  office. 

24,  25.  But  Jesus  did  not  commit  him- 
self unto  them.  The  contrast  is  stronger  in 
the  original:  But  Jestis  him.self ;  i.  e.,  Jesus 
on  his  part.  The  verb  which,  with  the  nega- 
tive particle,  is  translated  did  not  commit, 
i.  e.,  trust,  is  in  the  imperfect  tense,  tind, 
therefore,  denotes  continued  action.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  verb  knew  in  verse  25. 
And  these  verses  afford  proof,  first,  that 
the  Evangelist  did  not  mean  to  ascribe 
saving  faith  to  the  many  spoken  of  in  verse 
23;  and,  secondly,  that  Christ  knew  both  men 
and  man,  both  the  hearts  of  all  men,  and  the 
inmost  nature  of  man.  His  knowledge  w.^s 
perfect,  independent,  and,  therefore,  divine 
(comp.  John  1:  48  sq. ;  4:  19,  29;  6:  61,  64; 
11:  4,  15;  13:  11;  16,  19;  21:  17);  for  such 
knowledge  points  to  a  divine  nature  (ps.  7:9; 
139:2;  Acts  15: 8).  See  also  "Bib.  Sac."  1882,  p. 
182.  It  is  however  possible  that  the  expres- 
sion all  (wavTas)  means,  in  this  connection,  all 


94 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  III. 


CHAPTEK  III. 


THERE  was. a  man  of  the  Pharisees,  named  Nico- 
demus,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews: 
2  "  The  same  came  to  Jesus  by  night,  and  said  unto 
him.  Rabbi,  we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from 
Ciod:    for  *  no   man  can   do  these   miracles  that  thou 
doest,  except  'God  be  with  him. 


1  Now  there  was  a  man  of  the  Pharisees,  named 

2  Nicodemus,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews :  the  same  cauie 
unto  him  by  night,  and  said  to  him.  Rabbi,  we 
know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  Irom  God:  for 
no  man  can  do  these  signs  that  thou  doest,  except 


ell.  7:  50;  19:  39 6  ch.  9:  16,  33;  Acts  2  :  Ti c  Acts  10:  38. 


with  whom  the  Lord  had  to  do— all  whom  he 
met  or  attempted  to  influence. 

The  expression,  did  not  commit  (or  trust) 
himself  unto  them,  has  been  supposed  to 
mean  that  he  did  not  associate  with  them 
confidentially,  as  he  did  with  his  disciples 
(Meyer);  or  that  he  did  not  frankly  announce 
himself  to  them  as  the  Messiah  (Lange);  or, 
simply,  that  he  did  not  hold  them  to  be  his 
true  disciples,  because  he  knew  the  weakness 
of  their  faith  (Liicke).  Does  it  not  rather 
mean  that  he  did  not  give  them  his  confi- 
dence as  genuine  disciples,  but  kept  himself 
aloof  from  them  as  persons  who  could  not 
3'et  be  fully  trusted  in  that  way,  as  men  wlm, 
though  professing  to  be  friends  and  believers, 
might,  at  any  moment,  become  foes? 


Ch.  3  :  1-31.  Christ's  Conversation 
WITH  Nicodemus. 

1.  There  was  a  man  of  the  Pharisees, 
named  Nicodemus,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews. 

The  Evangelist  now  describes  a  remarkable 
interview  which  Jesus  had  with  a  believer  of 
the  class  just  mentioned  (2:23).  This  believer 
was  a  Pharisee,  and  the  Pharisees  were  dis- 
tinguished for  their  orthodox  creed  and 
punctilious  observance  of  the  Jewish  ritual. 
Paul  speaks  of  them  as  "  thestraitest  sect  of 
our  religion"  (Acts 26: 5,  Rev.  ver.),  and  Christ 
frequently  denounces  their  sanctimonious  hy- 
pocrisy. Yet  many  of  them  were,  no  doubt, 
earnest  and  sincere,  as  well  as  scrupulous. 
Saul  of  Tarsus  was  such  a  man  before  his 
conversion.  And  Nicodemus,  though  timid, 
was  probably  another. 

He  was,  moreover,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews, 
and  "the  teacher  of  Israel"  (ver.  10,  Rev.  ver.); 
and,  as  the  former  title  "is  given  in  some  pas- 
sages (JohQ7:26;  Acts  3 :  17,  etc.),  to  members  of  the 
Sanhedr.in,  it  has  been  inferred  that  he  was  a 
member  of  that  body.  He  was,  probably, 
also  a  scribe  or  teacher  of  the  law  ( Jouii  3 :  lo) ; 
and  hence  belonged  to  that  branch  of  the 
council  which   represented  the  learned  class 


of  the  nation"  (Hackett).  The  name  Nico- 
demus was  current  among  the  Greeks,  as  well 
as  among  the  Jews. 

Meyer  remarks  very  justly,  that  there  is  no 
objection  to  supposing  that  the  disciples,  and 
especially  John,  were  present  at  this  conver- 
sation. For  it  was  not  from  fear  of  the  disci- 
ples, but  from  fear  of  the  Jews,  that  he  came 
to  Jesus  by  night;  and  the  vivid  and  consist- 
ent characterization  of  the  interview  favors 
the  idea  that  the  Evangelist  was  present.  If 
not,  he  probably  received  an  account  of  it 
from  the  Lord. 

2.  The  same  came  to  Jesus  (rather,  imto 
him)  by  night.  Various  conjectures  have 
been  offered  as  to  the  reason  which  led  Nico- 
demus to  visit  Jesus  by  night,  rather  than  by 
day.  His  engagements  during  the  day  may 
have  left  him  no  time  for  such  a  visit,  so  that 
he  must  make  it  by  night,  or  not  at  all.  The 
nature  of  Christ's  ministry  at  this  time  may 
have  rendered  a  quiet  conversation,  such  as 
Nicodemus  sought,  impossible  by  day,  and, 
therefore,  he  was  constrained  to  come  at 
night.  But  when  we  bear  in  mind  the  con- 
nection of  Nicodemus  with  the  chief  council 
of  the  Jews,  the  spirit  which  animated  that 
council  in  its  subsequent  dealings  with  Christ 
and  his  disciples,  and  the  caution  which  ap- 
pears in  the  later  acts  of  Nicodemus,  it  seems 
just  to  suppose  that  he  was  influenced  by  fear 
of  the  Jews,  to  select  the  night  for  his  inter- 
view with  Christ  (see  Edersheim  I.  p.  381  sq. ; 
Weiss  "Leben  Jesu,"  I.  400  sq).  Convinced 
that  Jesus  was  at  least  a  prophet,  and  sus- 
pecting that  he  might  be  the  Messiah,  he  had 
not  "the  courage  of  his  convictions,"  but  was 
influenced  by  fear  of  God  and  fear  of  man  at 
the  same  time — a  not  unfrequent  state  of 
mind.  For  many  persons  strive  to  serve  both 
God  and  self  in  the  same  act.  Yet.  in  reality, 
they  consent  to  serve  God  only  so  far  as  may 
be  consistent,  in  their  view,  with  a  supreme 
regard  to  self.  Rabbi,  we  know  that  thou 
art   a  teacher  come  from   God:   for  no 


Ch.  III.] 


JOHN. 


95 


3  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Verily,  verily, 
I  say  unto  thee,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he 
cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  (iod. 

4  Nicodenuis  saith  unto  him.  How  can  a  man  be 
born  when  he  is  old  ?  can  he  enter  the  second  time 
into  his  mother's  womb,  and  be  born  ? 


3  God  be  with  him.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto 
him.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  Except  a  niaa 
be  born  'anew,  he  cannot  see  the  kiugdoiu  of  (iod. 

4  Nicodemus  saith  unto  him,  How  can  a  man  be  b<irn 
when  he  is  old?  can  he  enter  a  second  time  into  his 


o  oh.  1 :  13  ;  Gal.  6  i  15  ;  Tit.  3  :  5  ;  James  1 :  18  ;  1  Pet.  1 :  2.) ;  1  J5hn  3 :  9. 1  Or,  Jrt 


man  can  do  these  miracles  (signs)  that 
thou   doest,   except   God    be   with    him. 

This  language  of  Nicodemus  appears  to  ex- 
press very  exactlj'  the  extent  of  his  faith  in 
Jesus.  For  (1)  he  addresses  Jesus  as  Rabbi, 
and  this,  in  the  circumstances,  was  a  recogni- 
tion of  his  right  to  be  heard  as  a  religious 
teacher;  (2)  joining  others  with  himself,  he 
declares  that  they  knew  Jesus  to  be  One  who 
had  come  from  God  as  a  teacher;  and  (3) 
he  specifies  the  source  of  their  knowledge  on 
this  point,  viz.,  the  signs  which  Jesus  was 
working;  for  these  signs  were  such  as  showed 
the  presence  of  God  with  him  who  wrought 
them  It  will  be  observed  that  he  empha- 
sizes the  divine  mission  of  Jesus,  that  be  was 
certainlj'  a  prophet ;  for  this  is  the  force  of 
the  Greek  words  in  their  order:  ''from  God, 
hast  thou  come,  a  teacher." 

3.  .  .  .  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee, 
Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot 
see  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  answer 
seems  abrupt,  but  it  is  unnecessary  to  suppose 
the  omission  of  any  connecting  thought. 
For  Jesus,  being  recognized  as  a  teacher  from 
God,  and  reading  for  himself  at  a  glance  the 
character  of  Nicodemus,  as  well  as  the  ques- 
tion that  was  in  his  heart,  viz. :  "What  must 
a  man  do  in  order  to  enter  the  Messiah's 
kingdom?"  (Mej-er),  does  not  wait  for  this 
question  to  be  put  in  words,  but  declares  at 
once  that  a  new  birth,  a  new  life,  is  indispen- 
sable, in  order  to  any  real  knowledge  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  "No  one,"  he  says, 
'whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  can  grow  up,  or 
glide  over,  from  nature  into  grace;  every  one 
must  begin  his  life  altogether  anew,  in  order 
to  share  in  my  kingdom." 

Many  interpreters  insist  on  the  primary 
sense  of  the  word  translated  again  (iviaiev). 
That  sense  is  local,  "from  above,"  and  is  the 
prevailing  meaning  of  the  word.  (See  John 
3:  31;  19:  11;  James  1 :  17;  B:  15).  It  also 
agrees  with  the  teaching  of  this  Evangelist 

(.lohn  l:13;lJohn2:  29;  3:9;  4:  7;  5:  1;4,  18).        But    the 

word  has  also  a  temporal  sense,  "from  the 
first"    (Luke  1:3;  Acts 26: 5).     And,   derived  from 


this,  it  has  a  meaning  suggested  by  the  answer 
of  Nicodemus,  viz.,  "anew,"  or  "afresh." 
(See  Gal.  4:9;  Wisdom  of  Sirach  19:  6). 
Against  the  first  sense,  "from  above,"  Godet 
remarks:  If  it  (avwSei/)  "had  this  signification, 
the  emphasis  would  certainly  fall  on  this 
word,  since  Jesus  would  have  in  view  the 
antithesis  between  terrestrial  birth  and  birth 
from  above.  And,  in  this  case,  the  adverb 
would  have  preceded  the  verb.  Placed  after 
the  verb,  it  merely  reinforces  the  idea  of 
birth;  and  with  this  agrees  the  meaning 
"anew."  In  Gal.  4:  9  this  word,  with  the 
addition  of  "again"  (n-iAii/),  is  taken  in  the 
same  sense.  The  bondage  into  which  the  Ga- 
latians  replunge  themselves,  is  described  by 
the  word  "again,"  as  the  second  (numeri- 
cally), and  by  "anew"  or  "afresh,"  as  the 
moral  reproduction  of  the  "first." 

By  the  kingdom  of  God  is  meant  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,  which  embraces  all  who 
truly  believe  in  him,  and  are  therefore  obe- 
dient to  his  commands.  And  the  commands 
of  Christ  have  respect,  first,  to  the  inward 
life  of  faith,  love,  joy,  hope;  and,  secotidly, 
to  the  outward  life,  which  manifests  and 
strengthens  the  inward.  The  reign  of  Christ 
begins,  no  doubt,  in  the  soul;  but  by  his  com- 
mand it  passes  at  once  into  ritual  and  practi- 
cal expression,  and  the  blessed  order  of  church 
life.  It  is  first  invisible,  personal,  and  then 
social,  corporate.  The  ritual  and  order  of 
his  kingdom  were  not  fully  declared  in  his 
early  ministry  ;  but  they  were  to  be  observed 
as  soon  as  they  were  made  known. 

To  see  the  kingdom  of  God  (comp.  Mark 
9:1;  Luke  2:  26,  30),  is  to  perceive  and  ap- 
preciate its  character ;  and  to  appreciate  its 
character,  one  needs  to  enter  into  it  with  the 
whole  heart  (ver.  5).  We  do  not  therefore  find 
any  important  difference  between  the  two  ex- 
pressions used  by  Christ. 

4.  .  ,  .  How  can  a  man  be  born  when 
he  is  old?  etc.  The  precise  meaning  of  this 
reply  is  doubtful.  It  may  be  that  Nicode- 
mus understood  the  words  of  Jesus  correctly 
(comp.  Jer.  31:  33;  Ezek.  11:  19,  20;  36:  26;; 


96 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  hi. 


5  Jesus  answered,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee, 
"Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  aud  of  the  Spirit,  he 
■cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  Uod. 


5  mother's  womb,  and  be  born  ?  Jesus  answered. 
Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  Except  a  man  be 
born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 


:  Mnrl(  16:  16;  Acts  2  :  38. 


for  the  metaphor  of  a  new  birth  appears  to 
have  been  used  by  the  Rabbins  to  describe 
the  religious  change  in  a  Gentile  who  became 
a  proselyte  to  the  Jewish  faith  ;  and  the  im- 
port of  baptism,  as  administered  by  John, 
implied  the  same  view  of  repentance,  namely, 
that  it  was  a  burial  of  the  old  life,  and  en- 
trance upon  a  new  life.  But,  if  he  under- 
stood these  words,  he  doubtless  felt  them  to 
be  "ahard  saying"  when  applied  to  orthodox 
Jews,  and  especially  when  applifed  to  good 
men  of  advanced  age,  whose  habits  of  think- 
ing, of  feeling,  and  of  action  have  been  long 
fixed.  So  radical  a  change,  so  utter  a  renun- 
ciation of  the  old  and  appropriation  of  the 
new  in  religious  life,  may  have  seemed  to 
him  as  difficult  a  matter  as  for  one  to  enter  a 
second  time  into  his  mother's  womb  and  be 
born.  Yet  there  is  perhaps  a  touch  of  irony 
and  exaggeration  in  the  latter  question,  which 
was  certainly  meant  to  suggest  the  impossi- 
bility of  the  change  demanded  by  Christ. 
But  whether  we  can  ascertain  the  precise 
thought  of  Nicodemus  in  this  response  or  not 
is  of  comparatively  little  consequence,  since 
it  is  not  noticed  in  the  further  teaching  of 
Jesus,  and  therefore  our  interpretation  of  the 
Saviour's  language  does  not  depend  upon  our 
knowing  the  purport  of  the  Pharisee's  reply 
to  his  first  declaration. 

5.  .  .  .  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee, 
Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of 
the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God.  Jesus  makes  no  reply  to  the 
words  of  Nicodemus,  unless  it  be  by  re-as- 
serting, in  the  most  impressive  language,  the 
necessity  of  another  birth  or  generation  for 
every  man  who  would  enter  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  by  describing  this  new  birth  as  one 
that  is  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit.  But 
this  description,  though  brief,  includes  a  pe- 
culiar expression.  Had  it  simply  character- 
ized the  new  birth  as  one  of  {or  from)  the 
Spirit,  the  interpretation  would  have  been 
comparatively  obvious;  the  reference  to  a 
change  of  character,  purpose,  and  life,  eifected 
by  the  Spirit  of  God  working  in  the  soul, 
would  have  been  clear  and  forcible.  But  it 
characterizes  the  new  birth  asone//'om  water 


and  Spirit,  as  if  it  had  both  a  ritual  origin 
and  a  spiritual,  an  outward  side  and  an  in- 
ward, a  visible  expression  and  an  invisible 
reality.  This  at  least  is  one  explanation  of 
the  words. 

According  to  this  view,  Nicodemus  prob- 
ably came  to  Jesus  by  night,  because  he  was 
subject  to  the  fear  of  man.  Half-persuaded 
that  Jesus  was  the  promised  Messiah,  and 
half-inclined  to  become  his  disciple,  the  fear 
of  man  made  him  seek  to  be  so  in  secret. 
"With  the  Pharisees  generally  (see  Luke 
7:  30)  he  had  rejected  the  baptism  of  John, 
who  did  no  miracle  (Johnio:«);  and  now, 
though  looking  wistfully  toward  Jesus,  who 
was  working  miracles  that  must  be  ascribed 
to  the  presence  and  power  of  God,  he  was  in- 
wardly resolved  not  to  break  with  the  Phari- 
sees bj'  submitting  to  baptism,  and  thus  openly 
professing  his  allegiance  to  Christ.  With  this 
view  of  his  character  and  state  of  mind,  Jesus 
might  tell  the  prudent  Pharisee  now  before 
hiin,  that  no  one  could  be  a  member  of  the 
Messiah's  kingdom  without  entering  it  in  the 
prescribed  way,  without  submitting  to  the 
rite  which  had  been  appointed  to  symbolize 
and  declare  the  spiritual  change  involved  in 
becoming  a  Christian.  And  surely  it  would 
be  natural  for  Jesus,  when  speaking  of  birth 
from  Spirit,  to  call  the  rite,  whi(!h  symbolizes 
this,  birth  from  water.  One  stands  at  the 
beginning  of  the  inward  life,  and  the  other  at 
the  beginning  of  the  corresponding  outward 
life.  And  therefore  Jesus  could  say,  with  the 
utmost  propriety:  "You  must  confess  me 
openly  in  the  prescribed  way — which  you  are 
unwilling  to  do — and  you  must  also  be  the 
subject  of  a  great  spiritual  change,  which  is 
represented  by  that  confession,  or  you  cannot 
enter  my  kingdom."  For  tne  order  of  ex- 
pression, which  is  rhetorical  rather  than  logi- 
cal, compare  Rom.  10:  9:  "If  thou  shalt  con- 
fess with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
shalt  believe  in  thy  heart  that  God  raised 
him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved." 

But  another  interpretation  is  sometimes 
given  to  the  words /row  water  (e'f  u5aTo?),  viz., 
that  they  denote  "a  pure  source  of  a  new 
spiritual  life  in  man,"  while  the  next  words, 


Ch.III.] 


JOHN. 


97 


6  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh;  and  that 
which  is  born  of  the  vSpirit  is  spirit. 

7  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee,  Ye  must  be  born 
again. 

8  » The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou 
hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it 
Cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth  ;  so  is  every  one  that  ib 
bora  of  the  Spirit. 


6  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh  ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 

7  spirit.    Marvel  not  that  I  said  untotbee.  Ye  must  be 

8  born  'anew,  ^xiie  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth, 
and  thou  hearest  the  voice  thereof,  but  kuowesl  not 
whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth  :  so  is  every 


a  Eccl.  11 :  5;  1  Cor.  2:  II. 1  Ov.  from  above 2  Or,  The  Spirit  breatheth. 


from  Spirit  {e|  .  .  .  7rvevix.aLT0i),  "mention  in 
plain  language  the  author  of  this  new  birth." 
— (Ripley.)  In  other  words,  "water  is  a  fig- 
urative term  for  the  purifying  power  of  the 
Spirit"  (comp.  1:  13).  But  this  interpretation 
wa.s  probably  suggested  bj^  a  strong  re-action 
of  the  mind  against  the  error  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  and  it  seems  to  have  much  less 
in  its  favor  than  the  one  first  given.  Yet  it 
must  be  conceded  that  the  use  of  the  words 
from  water,  instead  of  from  baptis7n,  renders 
this  a  possible  interpretation. 

The  word  spirit  should  perhaps  be  written 
without  the  article  in  English  as  well  as  in 
Greek,  in  order  that  it  may  denote  in  the 
simplest  way  the  kind  of  source  from  which 
the  new  birth  springs,  though  it  is  perfectly 
evident  that  no  spirit  save  the  divine  could  be 
thought  of  as  that  source.  (See  ver.  6-8  ) 
Weiss  holds  that  "the  omission  of  the  article 
before  'water'  and  'spirit'  shows' that  water 
and  spirit  are  contemplated  generically  ;  .  .  . 
that  the  two  factors  are  simply  co-ordinated, 
the  water  being  thought  of  as,  by  its  nature, 
a  purifying  factor,  and  the  spirit  as  an  effi- 
cient principle  of  new  life;  while  the  essen- 
tial doctrine  is  that,  without  a  putting  off  of 
the  old,  sinful  nature,  and  the  generation  of 
a  wholly  new  nature  from  u  powerful  new 
principle,  the  birth  intended  in  verse  3  is  not 
realized."  For  a  further  discussion  of  this 
passage,  and  of  others  that  are  sometimes  sup- 
posed to  teach  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  re- 
generation, see  Appendix. 

6.  That  which  is  (or,  has  been)  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  {has 
been)  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.  In  these 
words  Jesus  assumes  that  the  kingdom  of 
Grod  is  primarily  spiritual,  consisting  of 
"righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the 
Holy  Ghost"  (Rom.  14:17).  Hcncc,  that  which 
is  carnal  cannot  enter  it.  But  those  who 
have  been  begotten  and  born  of  sinful  men, 
resemble  their  parents  in  character — they  are 
carnal,  sinful.  Natural  birth  does  not  qualify 
one  to  be  s»  member  of  a  spiritual  kingdom. 


Accordingly,  the  word  flesh  seems  to  be  used 
here  in  the  same  sense  as  in  Gen.  6:  3,  and  in 
many  passages  of  Paul ;  and,  if  so,  the  new 
birth  is  here  represented  as  being,  at  once,  a 
cleansing  and  a  creation.  It  raises  one  from 
a  life  of  unbelief  and  condemnation,  into  a 
life  of  faith  and  justification.  It  translates 
one  from  a  kingdom  of  darkness  into  a  king- 
dom of  light.  It  makes  one  who  is  an  enemy 
of  God  his  friend  and  his  child.  And  this 
change  is  wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  This 
delight  in  God  and  communion  with  him, 
which  may  be  called  the  only  true  life  of  the 
soul,  must  be  ascribed  to  the  grace  of  God  as 
its  fountain.  For  this  reason  the  change  is 
wonderful,  and,  at  the  same  time,  credible;  a 
change  beyond  the  power  of  man,  and  wor- 
thy of  the  nature  of  God. 

7.  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee,  Ye 
must  be  born  again.  The  pronoun  ye  is 
emphatic ;  and  the  reference  of  the  assertion 
to  Nicodemus  and  his  friends  is,  thereby, 
strongly  affirmed,  while  its  application  to 
Jesus  is,  perhaps,  virtually  denied.  In  truth, 
he  alone  of  all  the  sons  of  men,  was  holy 
and  well  pleasing  to  God,  from  the  first  mo- 
ment of  his  earthly  existence  to  the  last. 
And  his  generation  was  supernatural.  "  The 
H0I3'  Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the 
power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee! 
Therefore,  also,  that  holj' thing  (child)  which 
shall  be  bom  of  tliee,  shall  be  called  the  Son 

of  God"    (Lukel:  3ff). 

8.  The  wind  bloweth  Avhere  it  listeth 

(or,  will),  etc.  The  independence,  the  mys- 
terioixsness,  and  the  power  of  the  wind,  are 
here  used  by  the  Saviour  to  illustrate  the 
secret  and  mighty  agencj*  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  regeneration.  But  the  carrying  out  of  the 
simile  in  the  last  clause  is  disappointing. 
For  the  reader  naturally  expects  the  compari- 
son to  be  finished  by  a  direct  reference  to  the 
Spirit.  As  the  wind  acts,  the  Spirit  acts — 
secretly,  mightily,  unaccountably;  in  the  one 
case  apparently,  and  in  the  other  case  really, 
self- moved.     Instead  of  this  expected  appli- 


98 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  III. 


9  Nicodemus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  «  How  can 
these  thiugs  be? 

10  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  a 
master  of  Israel,  and  knowest  not  these  tilings? 

11  '  Verily,  verily,  1  say  unto  thee,  We  spealc  that  we 
do  know,  and  testiiy  that  we  have  seen;  and  "j'e  re- 
ceive not  our  witness. 


9  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit.    Nicodemus  answered 

10  and  said  unto  him.  How  can  these  things  l)e?  Jesus 
answered  and  said  unto  him.  Art  thou  the  teacher 
of   Israel,   and    uuderstandest    not    these    things? 

11  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  We  speak  that  we  do 
know,  and  bear  witness  of  that  we  have  seen ;  and 


ach.  6:  52,  60 b  Matt.  11 :  27  ;  ch.  1 :  18;  7  :  16  ;  8:  M  ;  li:  49;  U:  24 c  ver.  32. 


cation  of  the  figure,  we  have  a  reference  to  ' 
him  who  experiences  this  mysterious  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit.  But  the  difBculty  is 
merely  formal.  For,  either  the  second  mem- 
ber of  the  comparison  is  a  popular,  but 
slightly  ungrammatical  substitute  for  the 
expression:  "So  is  it  with  every  one  that 
has  been  born  of  the  Spirit"  ;  or  else  the 
experience  of  one  who  perceives  the  effect  of 
the  wind  in  nature,  is  compared  with  the  ex- 
perience of  one  who  feels  the  effect  of  the 
Spirit  acting  on  his  soul,  thus:  "As  thou 
hearest  the  sound  of  the  free,  mysterious 
wind,  knowing  only  its  effect  and  not  its 
source  or  end,  so  is  every  one  that  has  been 
born  of  the  Spirit,  conscious  of  the  Spirit's 
action  by  its  effects,  though  the  Spirit  comes 
and  goes  mysteriously,  and  as  he  will." 
"The  night  is  quiet  around  you,  not  a  sound 
of  bending  branch  or  rustling  leaf  comes 
from  the  neighboring  wood;  but  now  the  air 
is  stirred  as  by  an  invisible  hand ;  the  sigh 
of  the  night-breeze  comes  through  the  bend- 
ing branches  and  nestling  leaves;  you  hear 
the  sound;  but  who  can  take  you  to  that 
breeze's  birth-place,  and  show  you  where  and 
how  it  was  begotten;  who  can  carry  you  to 
its  place  of  sepulchre,  and  show  you  where 
and  how  it  died?"— (Hanna.)  Chadwick 
supposes  that  the  action  of  the  new-born  soul 
is  here  compared  with  that  of  the  wind. 
"The  mysterious  movements  of  the  wind, 
heard  but  not  comprehended,  are  like  the 
man  born  of  the  Spirit,  who  is,  therefore,  not 
indeed  lawless,  but  obedient  to  finer  and 
more  subtle  laws,  which  a  natural  man  can- 
not understand,  even  when  their  eflfects  are 
palpable."  But  this  view  is  f^^reign  to  the 
context,  and  must  therefore  be  rejected. 

lO.  .  .  .  Art  thou  a  master  (rather,  the 
teacher)  of  Israel,  and  knowest  not  these 
things?  Namely,  that  these  things  are  so, 
are  realities  in  the  moral  government  of  God  ? 
There  was  much  in  the  Old  Testament  which 
ought  to  have  led  a  true  Israelite  to  believe 
in   the  power  of  God's  Spirit  to  renew  the 


hearts  of  men,  and  much  which  ought  to 
have  led  a  teacher  of  religicm  to  expect  a 
wonderful  increase  of  spiritual  power  at  the 
coming  of  Christ.  The  definite  article  before 
teacher  has  perplexed  many  interpreters, 
since  there  is  no  evidence  that  Nicodemus 
was  pre-eminently  the  teacher  of  Israel  at 
this  time.  But  he  was  probably  a  learned 
and  prudent  man,  well  known  as  a  teacher  of 
the  law ;  and  Winer  is,  perhaps,  correct  in 
supposing  tiiat  the  article  is  here  employed  in 
a  rhetorical  way,  to  contrast  the  teacher  wita 
the  doubter,  the  instructor  of  God's  people 
with  the  man  who  knows  nothing  of  the  new 
birth  and  of  the  life  in  God.  Compare  such 
an  expression  as  this:  "Are  you  the  theo- 
logical professor,  and  cannot  understand  this 
passage?  "     Also  Luke  18:  13. 

11.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  We 
speak  that  we  do  know,  and  testify  that 
we  have  seen.  By  these  words  Jesus  as- 
sures Nicodemus,  in  the  most  solemn  manner, 
that  his  knov/ledge  of  what  he  is  teaching  is 
certain  and  direct,  that  his  word  is  equivalent 
to  that  of  an  eye-witness,  and  can  only  be 
doubted  by  doubting  his  integrity.  At  the 
same  time  he  charges  the  Pharisee  before 
him,  and,  without  doubt,  the  large  body  of 
men  with  which  Nicodemus  was  associated, 
with  not  receiving  his  testimony. 

But  what  distinguished  this  part  of  Christ's 
answer  from  that  which  follows,  and  from  his 
well-nigh  uniform  manner,  is  the  use  of  the 
pronoun  ive,  instead  of  "I."  Is  it  possible 
to  account  for  this  deviation  from  his  usual 
style?  Some  believe  that  he  associates  with 
himself,  by  means  of  this  exceptional  Ave, 
John  the  Baptist,  who  is  represented  in  this 
Gospel  as  distinctively  a  "witness  of  the 
light"  (i:t),  both  because  he  was  divinelj' 
inspired  to  announce  the  great  characteristic 
of  the  Messiah's  reign,  to  wit,  baptism  in  the 
Spirit,  which  presupposes  regeneration,  and 
because  he  saw  the  descending  dove,  and 
heard  the  voice  from  heaven  by  which  the 
Messiah  was  pointed  out  to  him.     For  thug 


Cxi.     Ill] 


JOHN. 


99 


V2  If  I  have  told  you  eartlily  tliinj^s,  and  ye  believe 
not,  how  shall  ye  believe,  if  I  tell  you  of  heaveuly 
things? 

i;j  And  "  no  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he 
that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man 
which  is  in  heaven. 


12  ye  receive  not  our  witness.  If  I  told  you  earthly 
things,  and  ye  helieve  not,  how  shall  ye  l)elieve,  if  I 

13  tell  you  heavenly  things?  And  no  man  hath  as- 
cended into  heaven,  but  he  that  descended  out  of 
heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man  i  who  is  in  heaven. 


.  30:  4;  ch.  6:  33,  38,  51,62;  16:  28;  Acts  2  :  .34;  1  Cor.  15:  4T  ;  Eph.  4:  9,  10. 1  Many  ancient  authorities  omii.  who  i 


far,  it  is  said,  Jesus  has  been  speal<ing  with 
Nicodemus  of  the  work  of  tlie  Spirit,  having 
made,  at  most,  but  a  single  reference  to  bap- 
tism, which  is  a  rite  associated  with,  and 
representative  of,  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in 
regeneration.  This  view  would  seem  to  be 
very  reasonable,  if  we  knew  that  Nicodemus 
himself  had  rejected  the  baptism  and  testi- 
mony of  John — which  is  certainly  probable — 
and  if  we  knew  that  Jesus  had  referred  (how- 
ever indicated)  to  this  fact  in  speaking  of  the 
neces.sity  of  birth  from  water  and  Spirit  (ver.  5.) 

Weiss  remarks  that  "Jesus  joins  himself 
with  those  sent  from  God  .  .  .  whose  word 
must  be  received  in  faith,  if  any  would  come 
to  the  same  experience;  but,  in  the  historical 
situation,  the  only  one  besides  himself,  was 
John  the  Baptist;  who,  by  his  preaching  of 
the  baptism  of  water,  and  of  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit  through  the  Messiah  (i:33),  had 
already  pointed  men  to  the  necessity  of  a 
new  birth  from  water  and  Spirit,  even  as  he 
himself  was  doing. 

But  if  this  explanation  is  rejected,  Christ's 
use  of  the  plural  must  be  understood  as  either 
rhetorical  (Mej-er),  or  proverbial  (Alford),  the 
reference  being  strictly  and  onlj'  to  himself; 
for  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  any  of  his 
attendant  disciples  were  already  associated 
with  him  as  able  to  testify  of  the  things  to 
which  he  refers.  But  the  former  view,  viz., 
that  in  this  instance  he  associates  the  testimony 
of  John  the  Baptist  with  his  own  :  We,  (i.  e., 
I  myself  and  John  the  Baptist  whom  you 
have  rejected),  speak  that  we  do  know,  and 
testify  that  we  have  seen,  need  not  be  re- 
jected. The  pronoun  ye  in  the  last  clause,  re- 
fers to  Nicodemus  and  those  whom  he  repre- 
sented. Neither  he  nor  they  would  give  full 
credence  to  the  words  of  Jesus  or  of  his 
harbinger;  for  these  words  were  inconsistent 
with  their  deeply-rooted  prejudices. 

12.  If  I  have  told  you  {the)  earthly 
things  and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall 
ye  believe  if  I  tell  you  of  (the)  heavenly 
things?  By  the  earthly  things  Jesus  means 
the  things  of  which  he  has  been  speaking, 
and,  especially,  the  regenerating  work  of  the 


Spirit;  for  this,  however  secret  and  powerful, 
is  experienced  by  men  here  on  earth,  and 
may  be  known  in  its  effects  with  a  reason- 
able degree  of  certainty.  There  were  many 
in  Israel  who  had  already  entered  upon  the 
new  life  of  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith 
in  the  Lord  Jesu.s,  and  who  could  testify  of 
a  new  peace  and  joy  mysteriously  originated 
in  their  souls.  On  the  other  hand,  by  the 
heavenly  things,  ho  means  those  which 
they  could  only  know  by  his  testimonj^ — the 
counsels  of  eternal  love  which  were  finding 
their  accomplishment  in  the  incarnation  of 
the  Son  of  God,  in  his  atoning  death,  and 
in  the  glory  of  his  spiritual  reign.  Of  these, 
he  proceeds -to  speak  in  the  remainder  of  his 
conversation  with  Nicodemus.  The  article 
before  earthly  things  and  also  before  heav- 
enly things,  limits  the  things  in  question  to 
those  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom. 

13.  And  no  man  hath  ascended  up  to 
heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from 
heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man  Avhich  is 
in  heaven.  If  this  difBcult  verse  be  inter- 
preted strictly  according  to  the  context,  Jesus 
appears  to  teach  :  1.  That  no  person  on  earth 
has  ascended  into  heaven  and  had  direct 
knowledge  of  the  mind  and  action  of  God, 
to  whom  "the  heavenly  things"  ju.st  men- 
tioned belong  as  their  first  cause.  But  this 
denial  has  no  respect  to  the  state  of  departed 
spirits,  who  have  gone  from  this  life  not  to 
return.  2.  That  he  himself  who  came  down 
from  heaven  at  his  incarnation,  has  thus  as- 
cended into  heaven,  and  can  therefore  testify 
of  "the  heavenly  things,"  the  counsels  of  the 
Father  as  to  the  redemption  of  men.  Even 
since  the  incarnation,  his  intercourse  with 
the  Father  has  been  direct,  his  access  to 
heaven  unimpeded  (comp.  notes  on  1 :  5;  5: 
19  sq. ).  3.  That  the  Son  of  man,  though  now 
on  earth,  is  at  the  same  time  in  heaven — an 
assertion  which  implies,  without  doubt,  the 
ubiquity  of  the  Incarnate  "Word,  and  refutea 
the  opinion  of  those  who  insist  that  he  did 
not  have  the  use  of  his  divine  attributes, 
while  he  was  in  the  flesh. 

To  this   natural  interpretation   of  his  Ian- 


100 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  hi. 


14  «  And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilder- 
ness, even  so  'must  the  !Son  of  man  be  lifted  up: 

15  That    whosoever    believeth    iu    him    should    not 
perish,  but  <^have  eternal  life. 


14  And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilder- 

15  ness,  even  so  must  the  .Son  of  man  be  lifted  up  :  that 
whosoever  i believeth  may  in  him  have  eternal  life. 


a  Num.  21:  9 b  ch.  8  :  28  ;  12  :  32 c  ver.  36;  ch.  6:47. 1  Or,  beUeveth  in  Mm  may  have. 


guage,  there  seems  to  be  no  conclusive  ob- 
jection. Thus  understood,  it  was,  indeed, 
wonderful  language  to  be  uttered  to  a  cau- 
tious Pharisee;  but  it  may  have  been  adapted 
to  till  his  mind  with  wholesome  awe  as,  in  the 
night,  he  listened  to  it,  tailing  with  a  mysteri- 
ous solemnity  from  the  lips  of  Jesus.  "Who 
knows  the  character  and  feeling  of  Nico- 
denius  at  this  time  well  enough  to  say  that 
such  discourse  would  have  been  less  impres- 
sive or  less  useful  than  any  other? 

The  only  interpretation,  besides  the  above, 
which  deserves  attention  is  this:  that  Jesus, 
instead  of  saying,  No  one  hath  been  in  heaven, 
etc.,  says.  No  one  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven, 
etc.,  because  in  case  of  every  other  person 
but  himself,  being  in  heaven  must  depend 
on  ascending  into  heaven.  Hence,  the  word 
save  or  "except'  (ei  m"?',  refers  to  the  idea  of 
being  in  heaven,  as  implied  in  that  of  ascend- 
ing into  heaven.     This  is  Meyer's  view.  * 

14,  15.  And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  ser- 
pent in  the  wilderness,  etc.  According  to 
Num.  21 :  6-8,  when  many  of  the  Israelites 
had  been  bitten  by  venomous  serpents,  Moses, 
at  the  command  of  God,  made  a  seri)ent  of 
brass,  and  put  it  on  a  pole,  that  any  one  who 
had  been  bitten  might  look  upon  the  serpent 
and  live.  In  no  other  way  could  the  deadly 
operation  of  the  poison  be  overcome  and  life 
be  saved.  Jesus  now  uses  this  remarkable 
narrative  to  illustrate  the  necessity  of  his  own 
death,    and   the   certainty   of  eternal   life   to 

'The  closing  words,  which  is  in  heaven,  are 

omitted  by  X  B  L  Tb,  33,  Memphitic  (best  codices,  ac- 
cording to  Hort),  jEthiopic.  There  is  no  known  pa- 
tristic quotation  of  ver.  13  and  14  together.  Several 
Fathers,  Cyril  of  Alexandria  many  times,  quote  ver. 
13  without  including  these  closing  words;  but  we  can- 
not be  sure  they  did  not  have  them  in  their  copies. 
There  is  a  superficial  appearance  of  contradiction  be- 
tween the  clauses  ho  that  came  fl<»wii  from 
heaven  and  he  which  is  in  heaven.  That 
this  was  felt  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  omits  he 
which  is.  leaving  simply,  the  Son  of  man  in 
heaven,  and  two  cursives  make  it,  "he  that  is  from 
heaven,"  answering  to  he  that  came  diiwn  from 
heaven.  Now  this  superficial  difficulty  will  account 
for  the  omission  of  the  words  in  the  aliove-mentioned 
MSS.  and  versions,  and  also  for  their  omission  by  cer- 


those  who  should  believe.  He  affirms  that, 
according  to  the  merciful  plan  of  God,  he 
himself,  the  Son  of  man,  must  be  lifted  up  on 
the  cross  for  the  salvation  of  all  who  will  trust 
in  him.  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  he  now 
refers  to  his  death  for  sinners ;  and  hence  that, 
in  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  the  mystery 
of  his  sacrificial  death  was  distinctly  present 
to  his  mind.  He  felt  himself  to  be  the  Lamb 
of  God,  and  foresaw  his  pathway  through 
suffering  to  glory.  And  surely  he  who  was 
at  home  in  the  plans  of  heaven  might  be  ex- 
l)ected  to  speak,  with  even  greater  clearness 
than  John  the  Baptist,  of  his  atoning  death; 
and  it  is  evident  that  in  this  quiet  hour  he 
did  thus  speak  to  the  "ruler  of  the  Jews," 
who  came  to  him  for  light.  The  words  of 
the  common  text,  should  not  perish,  but, 
should  be  omitted,  because  they  are  probably 
an  interpolation,  which  was  first  made  acci- 
dentally hy  some  copyist  whose  eye  fell  on 
the  next  verse.  The  highest  authorities  omit. 
It  will  be  observed  that,  besides  omitting  the 
words,  should  not  perish,  in  verse  15,  the 
Rev.  Ver.  connects  in  him  with  may  have 
eternal  life,  rather  than  with  believeth.  The 
Greek  admits  of  either  construction.  When 
the  text  is  carefully  studied,  the  construction 
of  the  revisers  appears  preferable  to  the  other. 
According  to  Erasmus,  and  many  interpret- 
ers since  his  day  (c.  g.,  Westcott,  Milligan 
and  Moulton  in  Schaft's  "Popular  Commen- 
tary," etc.),  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with 

tain  Fathers  in  citing  the  passages.  Chap.  1 :  18  has  a 
somewhat  similar  expression,  but  not  presenting  the 
same  difficulty.  On  the  other  hand,  uo  reason  occurs 
to  the  mind  for  the  insertion  of  the  words  in  nearly  all 
the  early  versions,  as  well  as  in  most  MSS.  and  many 
Fathers,  if  they  were  not  originally  present.  Hort 
thinks  "they  may  have  been  inserted  to  correct  any 
misunderstanding  arising  out  of  the  position  of  '  has 
ascended,'  as  coming  before  'descended;'"  but  this 
would  be  correcting  a  slight  difficulty  by  introducing 
one  apparently  more  serious.  The  words  may  there- 
fore be  confidently  retained,  and  they  occasion  no  real 
difficulty  to  one  who  takes  thoughtful  and  Scriptural 
views  of  the  Incarnation  and  of  heaven.  If  attested 
only  by  X  L>  Memphitic,  iEthiopic,  the  omission  would 
be  readily  regarded  by  Hort  as  au  "Alexandrian' 
correction. — B. 


Ch.  III.] 


JOHN. 


101 


16  "For  God  so  loveil  tlic  world,  that  he  gave  his 
only  l)egotteii  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  (nit  have  everlasting  life. 

17  ''  For   God  sent   not   his  Son    into  the   world  to 


16  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten    Son,   that   whosoever    believeth   on    him 

17  should  not  perish,  but   have  eternal   life.     For  God 
sent  not  the  Son  into  the  world  to  judge  the  world; 


a  Kom.  5:  8;  1  JoIju  4:  U h  Luke  9  ;  56;  ch.  5  :  45  ;  8:  15  ;  12  :  47  ;  1  Johu  4:  14. 


Nicodemus  ends  with  the  fifteenth  verse,  and 
the  words  that  follow,  to  the  twenty-fir.st 
verse,  belong  to  the  Evangelist  only.  In 
favor  of  tliis  view  it  is  urged  (1)  that  the  word 
translated  only  begotten  is  never  elsewiiere 
applied  by  Christ  to  himself  as  the  Son  of 
God,  while  it  is  a  characteristic  expression  of 
John.  There  is  considerable  weight  in  this 
argument,  especially  when  we  bear  in  mind 
how  early  yi  Christ's  ministry  this  interview 
with  Nicodeinus  took  place,  and  how  habit- 
ually Jesus  called  himself  the  Son  of  man, 
avoiding  in  the  first  months  of  his  ministry 
any  direct  assertion  of  his  Sonship  to  God. 
But,  on  the  other  ha'id,  it  may  be  said  that, 
apart  from  these  verses  (16-21),  the  authorship 
of  which  is  in  question,  John  applies  this 
epithet  to  Christ  only  three  times  (i:ui8; 
ijotin4:9),  and  it  may  be  asked:  May  not 
Jesus  have  used  it  twice  and  John  thrice, 
rather  than  John  five  times?  Is  it  not  more 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  John  borrowed 
this  word  from  the  lips  of  Jesus,  tiian  to  sup- 
pose that  he  first  apjtlied  it  to  the  Son  of  God? 
(2)  That  there  is  no  reference  in  what  follows 
to  Nicodemus.  But  may  it  not  be  fairly  as- 
sumed tluit  Nicodemus  was  now  a  deeply'  in- 
terested listener,  while  Jesus  continued  for  a 
short  time  to  lay  before  his  mind,  in  words  of 
heavenly  wisdom,  the  origin  and  nature  of 
his  kingdom  ?  Other  arguments  for  the  Eras- 
mian  theory  are,  that  believed  in  the  name  of 
(v.  18)  is  an  expression  used  by  the  Evangelist 
(e.  5f.,  1:  12;  2:  23;  1  John  5:  13),  but  not 
elsewhere  by  Jesus;  that  such  an  addition 
finds  a  parallel  in  1 :  16-18,  and  probably  in 
3:31-36,  and  almost  certainly  in  12:37-41; 
and  that  the  past  tense  of  the  verbs  in  verse 
19  agree  with  those  in  1:11,  12,  and  with  the 
position  of  the  Evangelist  better  than  with 
that  of  Jesus  when  conversing  with  Nico- 
demus. It  must  be  granted,  we  think,  that 
these  arguments  are  weighty,  though  they  do 
not  seem  to  be  wholly  decisive. 

In  favor  of  regarding  the  following  to  verse 
21  as  the  words  of  Jesus,  may  be  urged  two 
circumstances:  (1)  That  the  Evangelist  has 
given  the  reader  no  hint  of  passing  from  the 


words  of  Jesus  to  his  own  words  at  this  point; 
and  (2)  that  he  has  made  no  reference  in  tliis 
place  to  a  close  of  the  Lord's  interview  with 
Nicodemus,  while  he  has  used  in  verse  22  an 
expression  which  implies  that  close.  Yet,  on 
the  whole,  the  more  one  studies  the  Fourth 
Gospel  the  more  probable  will  it  seem  to  him 
that  these  five  verses  (i6-n)  give  the  testimony 
of  John,  rather  than  the  very  words  of  Christ. 
16.  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  etc. 
This  verse  has  been  called  an  epitome  of  the 
whole  gospel,  and  no  single  statement  of  the 
New  Testament  is  better  entitled,  to  this 
designation.  (1)  It  goes  back  of  the  whole 
work  of  redemption,  and  reveals  the  motive 
in  which  that  work  had  its  origin.  (2)  It  de- 
scribes that  motive  as  love  or  good-will,  not 
merely  to  the  chosen  people,  or  to  the  elect 
from  every  nation,  but  to  all  mankind  ;  for 
this  is  the  only  tenable  meaning  of  the  world, 
as  here  used.  (3)  It  pronounces  the  gift  of 
Christ,  with  the  work  implied  in  that  gift,  a 
sufficient  reason  for  the  salvation  of  every 
man  who  will  believe  in  him.  And  (4)  it 
presents  that  salvation  to  the  mind  as  eternal 
life,  or,  in  other  words,  a  blessed  state  of 
being  begun  on  earth  and  continued  forever. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  ma3^  be  said  to  imply 
(a.)  that,  without  the  work  of  Christ,  men 
could  not  have  had  eternal  life,  and  (b)  that, 
without  faith  in  him,  they  cannot  now  have 
eternal  life,  although  he  has  been  lifted  up  on 
the  cross.  The  adverb  so  means,  with  so 
great  a  love,  and  the  verb  gave  has  respect 
to  all  the  humiliation  and  suffering  which  he 
endured  for  men,  and  which  culminated  on 
Calvary.     (See  Kom.  8:  32.) 

17.  For  God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the 
world  to  condemn  the  world,  etc.  The 
word  translated  condemn,  literallv  signifies 
to  judge;  but  generally,  in  this  Gospel,  with 
an  implication  that  the  decision  is  unfavor- 
able. Hence  it  is  not  improperly  rendered 
condemn.  The  Jews  are  said  to  have  ex- 
pected a  Messiah  who  should  judge  and  pun- 
ish the  Gentile  world,  and  the  language  here 
used  may  be  directed  against  this  error.  But 
it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  this  was  the 


102 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  III. 


condemn  the  world ;  but  that  the  world  through  him 
might  be  saved. 

IS  "He  that  bclieveth  on  him  is  not  condemned:  but 
he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already,  because  he 
hatli  not  l)elieved  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten 
Sou  of  (iod. 

19  And  this  is  the  condemnation,  ''that  light  is  come 
into  the  world,  and  ;uen  loved  darkness  rather  than 
light,  because  their  deeds  were  evil. 

20  For  «every  one  that  doeth  evil  hateth  the  light, 
neither  cometh  to  the  light,  lest  his  deeds  should  be 
reproved. 


but  that  the  world  should  be  saved  through  him. 

18  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  judged  :  he  that  be- 
lieveth not  hath  been  judged  already,  because  he 
hath  not  believed  on  the  name  of  the  only  begottea 

19  Son  of  God.  And  this  is  the  judgment,  that  the 
light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved  the 
darkness  rather  than   the   light;    for  their  works 

20  were  evil.  For  every  one  that  'doeth  evil  hateth 
the  light,  and  cometh  not  to  the  light,  lest  his  works 


ich.  5:24;  6:  40,  47;  20:  31....!>ch.  1 :  4,  9,  10,  11;  8  :  12....C  Job  24  :  13,  17;  Eph.  5:  13. 1  Or , practUeth. 


principal  reason  for  these  words.  They  have 
a  larger  scope.  They  apply  to  all  men — Jews 
as  well  as  Gentiles.  In  so  far  as  men  are  con- 
cerned, the  ohject  of  the  Father  in  sending 
the  Son  was  to  furnish  them  the  means  of 
salvation.  They  were  already  judged  and 
condemned  as  sinners;  but  the  Father  had 
purposes  of  mercy,  and  sent  his  Son  to  open 
a  way  of  escape  to  those  under  condemnation. 
Yet  it  was  a  provision  which  recognized  the 
moral  agency  of  man.  The  sending  of  the 
Son  did  not,  in  and  of  itself,  save  the  world  ; 
hut  it  was  necessary,  in  order  that  the  world 
might  be  saved,  if  it  would.  These  two  verses 
(16 anil  17)  give  the  motive  and  purpose  of  the 
incarnation.  The  result  of  it  is  next  pointed 
out. 

18.  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not 
condemned :  but  he  that  believeth  not 
is  condemned  already,  because  he  hath 
not  believed  in  the  name  of  the  only  be- 
gotten Son  of  God.  No  reader  can  fail  to 
see  the  harmony  of  this  saying  with' the  go.s- 
pel  as  preached  by  the  Apostle  Paul.  He 
who  is  a  believer  in  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God 
and  Saviour  of  men,  is  no  longer  under  law, 
but  is  under  grace.  He  is  no  longer  "being 
judged"  (KpiVerai),  but  is  forgiven,  and  recog- 
nized as  an  heir  of  life  eternal.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  who  does  not  believe,  has  been  al- 
ready judged  (i.  e.,  condemned.  See  above 
for  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  this  connec- 
tion), because  he  has  not  believed — the  judg- 
ment or  condemnation  covering  the  same 
period  as  the  want  cf  faith,  and  indeed  de- 
pending on  that  want  of  faith.  Observe  the 
tense  of  the  verbs,  literally  hath  been  con- 
demned (iceicptTai),  and  hath  (not)  believed 
(n-eTTiVTeuicef).  The  doctrine  here  taught  is  not 
that  unbelief  is  the  only  sin  for  which  man  is 
accountable,  but  that  it  is  a  rejection  of  par- 
don through  Christ,  a  rejection  of  Christ,  the 
Bringer  of  life;  and  is  therefore  the  reason 


why,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  is  still  condemned 
for  sin  of  whatever  kind.  "  God  has  pro- 
vided a  remedy  for  the  deadly  bite  of  sin ; 
this  remedy  the  man  has  not  accepted,  not 
taken:  he  must  then  perish  in  his  sins;  he  is 
already  judged  and  sentenced." — (Alford.) 
Notice  that,  in  speaking  of  the  actual  rela- 
tion of  men  to  Christ  and  eternal  life,  "every 
one"  is  referred  to  as  believing  for  himself. 
It  is  not  the  family,  the  nation,  or  the  world, 
but  every  one  who  is  represented  as  either 
believing  or  not  believing  in  him. 

19.  And  this  is  the  condemnation  (or 
jiidffynent),  etc.  The  nature  and  reasonable- 
ness of  the  judgment  in  question  are  set  forth 
by  these  words.  Jesus  is  declared  to  be  the 
Light  of  men,  the  clearest  revelation  of  God's 
holiness  and  love.  In  rejecting  him,  there- 
fore, they  reject  the  true  Light;  and  they  do 
this  because  they  prefer  the  darlcness  of  sin 
to  the  light  of  God;  and  this  preference  has 
its  source  in  their  sinful  conduct,  their  prac- 
tical evil.  Reversing  the  order,  and  proceed- 
ing from  cause  to  effect,  we  have  (1)  personal 
sinning;  (2)  preference  or  love  of  moral  dark- 
ness and  evil,  rather  than  of  "light  and 
truth"  as  revealed  in  Christ;  and  (3)  con- 
demnation unremoved. 

20.  For  every  one  that  doeth  evil  hateth 
the  light,  etc.  Not  only  may  the  evil  doer 
be  said  to  love  the  darkness  of  sin  rather  than 
the  light  of  God,  he  may  also  be  truly  said 
to  hate  the  light,  and  to  refuse  to  approach 
the  highest  source  of  blessing  to  his  soul. 
For  he  is  conscious  of  personal  sin,  and  is  un- 
willing to  see  it  in  the  light  of  infinite  purity  ; 
he  is  conscious  of  finding  pleasure  in  moral 
evil,  and  is  opposed  to  everj'thing  which  tends 
to  reveal  its  true  nature  and  subdue  the  heart 
to  penitence.  The  word  here  translated 
"evil"  {<{>av\a)  represents  bad  deeds  as  those 
out  of  which  no  real  gain  can  ever  come.  Sin 
is  profitless  as  well  as  wrong. 


Ch.  III.] 


JOHN. 


103 


21  But  he  that  doeth  truth  coineth  to  the  light,  that 
his  deeds  may  be  made  mauifest,  that  they  are  wrought 
in  God. 

22  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  liis  disciples 
into  the  land  of  .ludea;  and  there  he  tarried  with 
them,  "and  baptized. 


21  should  be  'reproved.  But  he  that  doeth  tlie  truth 
Cometh  to  the  light,  that  his  works  may  be  made 
mauifest,  ^that  lliey  liave  been  wrought  in  G(;(l. 

22  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples 
iuto  the  laud  of  Judaea;  and  there  he  tarried  with 


a  ch.  4 :  2. 1  Or,  convicted 2  O^,  becaute. 


21.  But  he  that  doeth  truth  cometh  to 
the  light,  etd  Here  are  clcsoribed  a  clitirac- 
ter  and  life  just  the  opposite  of  those  described 
in  the  twentieth  verse.  For  he  that  doeth 
truth,  is  one  who  is  habitually  doing  what 
the  truth  requires,  even  as  a  doer  of  the  law 
is  cue  who  constantly  does  what  the  law  re- 
quires. But  the  truth  comprehends  more 
than  "  the  law  ;  "  for  "  the  law  "  was  given 
by  Moses,  while  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ 
(1:17).  It  has  special  reference,  therefore,  to 
the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God  ;  and  whoever 
doeth  truth  accepts  that  grace,  or,  in  other 
words,  comes  to  the  light.  Indeed,  the  two 
things  are  inseparable,  being  difierent  phases 
of  the  same  life.  Moreover,  this  response  to 
the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  which  is  here 
called  doing  the  truth,  will  be  open  and 
manly,  involving  a  frank  confession  of  sinful- 
ness and  a  loyal  adhesion  to  Christ,  together 
with  a  desire  to  have  all  men  know  that  even 
repentance  and  faith  have  their  .source  in 
God.  Not  in  a  spirit  of  self-righteousness, 
but  ill  one  of  gratitude  and  love,  will  the 
grace  of  God  through  Christ  be  openly  ac- 
knowledged, and  this  acknowledgment  itself 
■will  be  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God  breath- 
ing upon  the  soul. 

If  Jesus  uttered  all  these  words  to  Nicode- 
mus,  we  may  say  that  "it  speaks  for  the 
simplicity  and  historic  truthfulness  of  our 
Evangelist,  that  he  adds  nothing  more,  and 
even  leaves  untold  the  immediate  result  which 
the  discourse  had"  (Baumgarten-Crusius,  in 
Alford).  But  if  the  last  five  verses  are  merely 
the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  it  is  still  true 
that  the  record  bears  every  mark  of  simplicity 
and  genuineness,  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
was  adapted  to  the  spiritual  state  of  the  in- 
quirer, and  that  it  proved  in  the  end  to  be 
good  seed  cast  into  good  soil  (see  7 :  50 ;  19 :  39^ 

22-24.  Contemporaneous  Ministry  of 
Jesus  and  of  John. 

22.  After  these  things.  Namely,  the 
events  which  have  been  narrated  as  taking 
place  in  Jerusalem,  i.  e.,  the  cleansing  of 
the  temple,  the  signs  wrought  by  Jesus,  and 


the  conversation  with  Nicodemus;  but  how 
long  after  these  events  the  Evangelist  does 
not  mention.  It  is,  however,  commonly  sup- 
posed, that  Jesus  left  the  city  soon  after  the 
close  of  the  passover,  or  about  the  end  of 
April,  A.  D.  27.  Came  Jesus  and  his  dis- 
ciples. By  his  disciples  may  be  under- 
stood Andrew  and  Peter,  James  and  John, 
Philip  and  Nathanael,  the  six  who  had  f(jl- 
lowed  him  from  the  Jordan  to  Cana  of  Galilee, 
and  perhaps  from  Cana  of  Galilee  to  Jerusti- 
leni.  We  cannot,  indeed,  be  perfectly  certain 
that  all  these  were  with  him,  or  that  others 
were  not  now  called  disciples  ;  but  the  narra- 
tive of  John  leads  us  to  think  especially  of 
these,  and  we  may  be  reasonablj'  certtiin  tiiat 
John  was  one  of  those  who  attended  Jesus  at 
this  time.  Perhaps  Andrew  and  Simon  Peter 
had  returned  to  Galilee.  Into  the  land  of 
Judea.  That  is,  into  the  province  or  coun- 
try of  Judea,  as  distinguished  from  Jerusa- 
lem. But  the  Evangelist  does  not  specify 
iinj'  particular  ])art  of  the  province,  probably 
because  Jesus  went  from  place  to  place,  visit- 
ing manj' villages  of  Judea.  And  there  he 
tarried  with  them  and  baptized.  As 
both  verbs  are  in  the  imperfect  tense,  which 
denotes  continuous  action,  this  clause  may  be 
translated.  And  there  he  was  remaining  with 
them  and  baptizing.  (1)  This  Judean  minis- 
try occupied,  it  is  thought,  about  seven 
months,  from  the  first  of  May  to  the  first  of 
December  (see  note  on  4 :  35).  (2)  It  is  not 
mentioned  by  the  other  Evangelists,  who 
limit  their  narratives  of  the  ministry  of  Christ 
before  his  last  passover,  to  what  he  did  in 
Galilee.  (3)  Yet  it  serves  to  account  for  sev- 
eral facts  mentioned  by  the  other  Evangelists 
(see  Matt.  26 :  6-13  ;  Mark  14 :  3-7  ;  Matt.  23 : 
37-39;  Luke  13:  34,  35).  (4)  It  brings  the 
ministry  of  Christ  himself  into  accord  with 
that  of  his  servants,  inasmuch  as  the  gospel  is 
first  oflTered  to  those  who  are  pre-eminently 
"the  Jews,"  the  chosen  people  of  God.  (5) 
Jesus  himself  acted  as  a  teacher.  He  abo 
administered  baptism^  but  only  by  the  hands 
of  his  disciples  (see  4:  2).    This  baptism  could 


104 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  III. 


23  And   John   also   was   baptizintr   in  Enon  near  to  |  23  them  and  baptized.     And  John  also  was  baptizing 
«Saliui,   because  there   was   much  water  there:    ''and  in  jEnon  near  to  Salim,  because  there  i  was  much 

they  came,  and  were  baptized.  I 

a  1  Sam.  9  :  4 h  Matt.  3  :  5.  6. 1  Gr.  were  many  waters. 


not  have  differed  essentially  from  that  of  I 
John.  It  must  have  been  a  sign  of  true  re- 
pentance and  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  promised 
Messiah.  It  must  have  been  a  symbol  of  en- 
trance upon  a  new  life  of  service  to  God  and 
his  Christ.  Compare  Edersheim  ("  The  Life 
and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,"  I.,  p.  398). 
"It  was  only  on  this  occasion  that  the  rite 
was  administered  under  his  sanction.  But 
the  circumstances  were  exceptional.  It  was 
John's  last  testimony  to  Jesus,  and  it  was 
preceded  by  the  testimony  of  Jesus  to  John. 
For  divergent,  almost  opposite,  as  from  the 
first  their  paths  had  been,  this  practical  sanc- 
tion on  the  part  of  Jesus  of  John's  baptism, 
when  the  Baptist  was  about  to  be  forsaken, 
betrayed,  and  murdered,  was  Christ's  highest 
testimony  to  him.  Jesus  adopted  his  bap- 
tism, ere  its  waters  forever  ceased  to  flow, 
and  thus  he  blessed  and  consecrated  them. 
He  took  up  the  work  of  his  forerunner,  and 
continued  it.  The  baptismal  rite  of  John  ad- 
ministered with  the  sanctitm  of  Jesus,  was 
the  highest  witness  that  could  be  borne  to  it." 
But  had  not  Jesus  sanctioned  the  baptism  of 
John  by  submitting  to  it  himself?  Or,  is  it 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  would  have 
caused  his  own  disciples  to  be  baptized  sim- 
ply to  endorse  the  baptism  of  John  ?  Weiss 
("Leben  Jesu,"  I.  S.  40G  sq.)  observes  that 
"the  people,  especially  the  inhabitants  of  the 
capital  and  southern  province,  were  not  yet 
ripe  for  his  properly  Messianic  activity.  Jesus 
must  become  his  own  harbinger.  In  these 
experiences  [with  Nicodemus,  etc.],  he  saw 
an  intimation  of  his  God,  that  he  should  now 
turn  back  to  a  more  preparatory  work.  What 
other  form  could  this  take  than  that  which 
had  been  assigned  by  God  himself  to  his  fore- 
runner?" 

23.  And  John  also  Avas  baptizing:.  Sur- 
prise has  been  expressed  at  the  separate  min- 
istry of  John  after  he  knew  that  Jesus  was 
the  Christ,  and  had  entered  on  his  work. 
But  there  is  no  occasion  for  surprise,  any 
more  than  there  was  when  Jesus  afterwar  is 
gent  out  the  twelve,  or  the  seventy.  For  the 
office  of  John  was  still  the  same — to  prepare 
men  for  the  reception  of  Christ ;  not  to  follow 


in  the  footsteps  of  Christ,  but  to  go  before 
and  make  ready  a  people  for  the  Lord.  In 
reply  to  Bruno  Bauer's  question:  "Why  did 
not  the  Ba|)tist  lay  down  his  herald's  office 
after  so  distinctly  recognizing  the  pre-emi- 
nence of  Christ?"  Ebrard  says:  "Because 
the  teachers  in  a  gymnasium  do  not  lay  down 
their  office  as  soon  as  a  new  university  is 
founded."  In  Enon  near  to  Salim.  The 
site  of  Salim  has  not  been  identified  in  a 
manner  wholly  satisfactory  to  scholars.  It 
seems  to  have  been  west  of  the  Jordan  (ver.2B). 
Jerome  testifies  that  it  was  shown  in  his  day 
eiglit  miles  south  of  Scythopolis,  the  ancient 
Bethshean  and  modern  Beisan.  Dr.  Thomson 
says  that  the  Jordan  Vallej',  south  of  Beisau, 
"  once  teemed  with  inhabitants,  as  is  evident 
from  ruined  sites,  and  tells  too  old  for  ruins, 
which  are  scattered  over  the  plain.  Of  Salim 
and  Enon,  which  must  have  been  in  the 
Ghor,  at  no  great  distance,  I  could  hear 
nothing."  This  plain  he  represents  as  "wa- 
tered in  every  part  by  fertilizing  streams." 
In  such  a  plain  there  may  have  been  a  place 
answering  to  the  description  of  "Enon,  near 
to  Salim."  Dr.  Barclay  believes  that  he  lias 
discovered  the  site  of  Enon  at  Wady  Farah, 
a  valley  about  five  miles  northeast  of  Jeru- 
salem. This  Wady  abounds  with  very  co- 
pious springs  and  large  pools,  while  another 
Wady,  quite  near,  is  called  Selam,  or  Seleim. 
("City  of  the  Great  King,"  pp.  558-570.) 
This  identification  has  not  been  accepted  by 
Biblical  scholars,  though  it  has  several  points 
in  its  favor.  There  is  nothing  in  the  narra- 
tive of  John  that  requires  one  to  place  Enon 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Jordan,  and  the 
testimony  of  Jerome  is  too  remote  from  the 
time  of  Christ  to  be  at  all  decisive. 

Yet  another  site  has  been  proposed.  In 
his  "Biblical  Researches "  (III.,  p.  333)  Dr. 
Robinson  remarks  "that  so  far  as  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture  is  concerned,  the  place 
near  which  John  was  baptizing  may  just  as 
well  have  been  the  Salim  over  against  Nab- 
ulus;  where,  as  we  have  seen,  there  are  two 
large  fountains."  C.  R.  Conder,  author  of 
"  Tent  Work  in  Palestine"  (I.,  p.  91  sq.),  re- 
marks that  the  Shalem  near  Shechem  "pes- 


Ch.  Ill] 


JOHN. 


105 


sesses  a  yet  higher  interest  as  the  probable 
site  of  the  Enon  near  to  Salim,  where  John 
was  baptizing,  because  there  was  much  water 
there.  Tiie  head  springs  are  found  in  an 
open  valley,  surrounded  by  desolate  and 
shapeless  hills.  The  water  gushes  out  over 
a  stony  bed,  and  flows  rapidly  down  in  a 
fine  stream  surrounded  by  bushes  of  oleander. 
The  supply  is  perennial,  and  a  continual  suc- 
cession of  little  springs  occurs  along  the  bed 
of  the  valley,  so  that  the  current  becomes  the 
principal  western  affluent  of  Jordan,  south 
of  the  Vale  of  Jezreel.  The  valley  is  open 
in  most  parts  of  its  course,  and  we  find  the 
two  requisites  for  the  scene  of  baptism  of  a 
liuge  multitude — an  open  space,  and  abund- 
ance of  water.  Not  only  does  the  name  Salem 
occur  in  the  village  three  miles  south  of 
the  valley,  but  the  name  JEnon,  signifying 
'springs,'  is  recognizable  at  the  village  of 
'Ainiin,  four  miles  north  of  the  stream. 
There  is  one  other  place  of  the  latter  name 
in  Palestine,  Beit 'Ainun  near  Hebron,  but 
this  is  a  place  which  has  no  very  fine  supply 
of  water,  and  no  Salem  near  it.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  many  other  Salems  all  over 
Palestine,  but  none  of  them  have  an  ^Enon 
near  them."  The  place  where  John  is  said 
to  have  been  baptizing,  "because  there  was 
much  water  there,"  is  so  wild  and  inaccess- 
ible, and  so  off  the  usual  lines  of  travel,  that 
comparatively  few  tourists  attempt  to  visit  it. 
Prof  McGarvey  thus  tells  the  story  of  his 
visit: 

"Salim,  near  to  which  Enon  was  located 
(John  3:  23),  is  a  village  on  the  slope  of  the 
hills  east  of  the  plain  of  Moreh,  and  nearly 
opposite  to  Jacob's  well.  Our  nearest  route 
would  have  been  to  pass  by  it ;  but  we  pre- 
ferred tracing  the  waters  from  near  their 
fountain  head;  so  we  turned  to  the  left  near 
Joseph's  tomb,  and  went  northward  a  few 
miles  along  the  Damascus  road. 

"This  brought  us  to  the  head  waters  of 
Wady  Bedan,  a  tributary  of  the  Wady  on 
which  Enon  is  located,  called  Wadj^  Farra. 
"We  struck  Wady  Bedan  at  a  point  vvhere 
four  mills,  propelled  by  its  water,  are  situated 
in  sight  of  one  another.  We  followed  its 
course  to  its  junction  with  Wady  Farra,  and 
in  doing  so  passed  twelve  mills,  the  last  sit- 
uated in  the  fork  of  the  two  streams,  and 
propelled  by  water  drawn  from  W^ady  Farra. 


The  rapid  descent  of  the  principal  stream 
makes  it  practicable  to  draw  off  these  side 
channels  at  short  intervals,  and  to  build  the 
mills  close  together.  In  some  instances  the 
mill-race  is  so  high  above  the  principal  stream 
that  it  runs  through  and  propels  two  mills  in 
making  its  way  down.  From  the  junction  of 
the  two  streams  we  continued  down  Wady 
Farra  in  search  of  a  place  answering  to  Enon. 
The  '  much  water'  we  found  all  the  way ;  and, 
although  the  season  was  exceptionally  dry, 
pools  well  suited  for  baptizing  were  abundant. 
We  rode  into  a  number  of  these  to  try  their 
depth.  But  we  wanted  to  find,  in  addition  to 
the  '  much  water,'  an  open  space  on  the  bank 
of  the  stream  suitable  for  the  assembling  of 
the  great  multitudes  who  flocked  to  Joiin's 
place  of  baptizing;  and  for  several  miles  we 
found  no  sucii  place.  We  pursued  our  path- 
less way  on  the  slopes  of  a  narrow  ravine, 
with  high  and  precipitous  hills  on  each  side. 
We  had  to  ford  the  stream  frequeaitly,  and 
its  banks  were  everywhere  so  thickly  crowded 
with  a  jungle  of  oleandi-rs  in  full  bloom  that 
we  could  not  always  pass  where  we  would. 
Never,  in  a  single  day,  have  I  seen  so  many 
oleanders.  For  as  many  as  five  miles  their 
line  of  mingled  pink  and  green  was  as  con- 
tinuous as  the  current  of  the  stream  which 
nourished  them.  Finally,  after  a  fatiguing 
ride,  during  which  both  our  dragomen  and 
our  escort  became  discouraged  and  fell  behind, 
there  suddenly  oj^ened  before  us  a,  beautiful 
valley  among  the  rrcoiintains,  about  one  mile 
wide  and  three  miles  long.  Bedouin  tents 
v;ere  joitched  in  groups  here  and  there;  herds 
of  camels,  to  the  number  of  three  or  four 
liundred,  were  grazing,  or  drinking,  or  mov- 
ing about;  and  swarms  of  brown-skinned  hoys, 
both  large  and  small,  were  bathing  at  differ- 
ent places  in  the  stream.  Here,  then,  was  the 
open  space  required,  and  a  more  suitable  place 
for  the  gathering  of  a  multitude  could  not  be 
found  on  the  banks  of  any  stream  in  Pales- 
tine."—(Quoted  by  the  "Journal  and  Mes- 
senger," Sept.  10.  1879.)  Because  there 
was  much  water  there.  The  expression, 
translated  much  water  (uSara  n-oAAo),  is  plu- 
ral, and  is  somtimes  rendered  "many  wa- 
ters. '  But  by  use  it  seems  to  denote  a  large 
body,  or  large  bodies  of  water,  rather  than 
numerous  small  streams.  Dr.  Hackett  under- 
stands it  to  signify  "deep  waters."    (Smith's 


106 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  III. 


24  For  "John  was  not  yet  cast  into  prison. 

25  Then  there  arose  a  question  between  soine  of 
John's  disciples  and  the  Jews  about  purifying. 

26  And  they  came  unto  John,  and  said  unto  him, 
Rabbi,  he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  'to 
whom  tliou  barest  witness,  behold,  the  same  baptizeth, 
and  all  men  come  to  him. 

27  John  answered  and  said,  "A  man  can  receive 
nothing,  except  it  be  given  him  from  heaven. 


24  water  there :  and  they  came  and  were  baptized.   For 

25  John  was  not  yet  cast  into  prison.  There  arose 
therefore  a  questioning  on  the  part  of  John's  disci- 

26  pies  with  a  Jew  about  purilying.  And  they  came 
unto  John,  and  said  to  him,  Kabiii,  he  that  was  with 
thee  beyond  Jordan,  lo  whom  thou  hast  borne  wit- 
ness, behold,  the  same  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come 

27  to  hiiu.  John  answered  and  said,  A  man  can  re- 
ceive nothing,  except  it  have  been  given  him  from 


a  Matt.  14:  3 b  ch.  1 :  7,  15,  27.  34 c  I  Cor.  4:7:  Heb.  5:4;  James  1:  17. 


Diet,  of  the  Bible,  s.  v.  ^non.)  The  only- 
other  places  where  the  words  occur  in  the 
New  Testament  are  Kev.  1 :  15;  14:  2;  17 :  1 ; 
and  19 :  6.  The  corresponding  Hebrew  ex- 
pression is  found  in  the  following  passages: 
Num.  20:  11;  24:  7;  2  Sam.  22:  17;  2  Chron. 
32  :  4  ;  Ps.  18  :  16 ;  29  :  3 ;  32  :  6  ;  77 :  19 ; 
9:3:4;  107:23;  144:7;  Isa.  17:13;  23:3; 
Jer.  51:  13,  55;  Ezek.  1:  24;  17:  5,  8;  19:  10; 
26:19;  27:26;  31:  5,7,15;  32:13;  43:2; 
Hab  3  :  15.  And  they  came,  and  Avere 
baptized,  that  is,  were  immersed ;  for  that 
is  the  meaning  of  the  word.  A  literal  trans- 
lation of  the  verse  renders  its  meaning  per- 
fectly plain:  "And  John  also  was  immersing 
in  ^non  near  Salim,  because  there  was  much 
water  there;  and  they  were  coming,  and  be- 
ing immersed."  The  process  was  continuous; 
hence  the  imperfect  tense  of  the  verbs.  This 
passage  virtually  affirms  that  baptism  could 
not  be  conveniently  administered  without  a 
considerable  body  of  water.  The  plea  that 
the  water  was  needed  for  other  purposes  than 
baptizing  is  set  aside  by  the  language  of  the 
sacred  writer.  For  the  reason  why  John  was 
baptizing  there  (not  why  he  was  preaching 
there),  was  because  there  was  much  water  in 
the  place. 

24.  For  John  was  not  yet  cast  into 
prison.  A  seemingly  incidental  remark, 
occasioned  perhaps  by  the  circumstance  that 
the  first  three  Evangelists  had  given  no  ac- 
count of  the  contemporaneous  ministry  of 
Jesus  and  of  .John.  The  definite  article  might 
be  inserted  before  prison,  making  the  form  of 
the  translation  agree  with  the  original ;  for 
the  reference  is  to  the  well-known  prison  or 
imprisonment  of  John. 

25,  26.  OcPAsiON  OF  John's  Further 
Testimony  for  .Tesus.  The  account  just 
given  was  probably  inserted  with  a  view  to 
what  now  follows. 

25.  Then  there  arose.  (Better,  as  in  Rev. 
Ver.,  there  arose  therefore  a  questioning  on 
'the  part  of  John  s  disciples  with  a  Jew  about 


purifying).  "Therefore"  {ivv)  represents 
this  dispute  as  a  consequence  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  baptism  by  Jesus  and  hj  John  at 
the  same  time;  and  the  words  of  the  Evan- 
gelist seem  to  indicate  that  it  was  begun  hy 
tlie  disciples  of  John.  The  Jew,  whether  ;i 
friend  or  an  enemy  of  .Jesus,  had  doubtless  re- 
])orted  that  multitudes  were  receiving  baptism 
from  the  Lord;  and  this  report  led  to  a  dis- 
cussion on  the  origin  and  meaning  of  the  rite 
as  a  s^mibol  of  purification.  Had  Jesus  as 
well  as  John  a  right  to  administer  it?  If  so, 
was  its  meaning  the  same  when  administered 
by  John  and  b^'  Jesus?  Or,  was  its  value 
greater  in  the  latter  case  than  in  the  former? 
Were  the  ministrj'  and  baptism  of  John  to  be 
superseded  by  those  of  Jesus  ?  Such  may 
have  been  the  questions  discussed,  as  we  infer 
from  the  terms  of  this  verse  and  of  those  that 
follow. 

26.  Rabbi,  he  that  Avas  Avith  thee  be- 
yond (tlie)  Jordan,  to  Avhom  thou  barest 
(hast  borne)  AA'itness,  behold,  the  same 
baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him. 
Wisely  do  the  followers  of  John  repair  to 
him  for  instruction.  But  their  language  be- 
trays a  feeling  of  jealousy  for  the  honor  of 
their  Master,  a  fear  lest  the  growing  influence 
of  Christ  should  weaken  that  of  John.  Yet 
they  do  not  go  so  far  as  to  criticise  the  minis- 
try of  Jesus ;  they  merely  suggest  their  per- 
plexity and  their  feeling,  by  a  brief  statement 
of  the  case.  It  is  probable  that,  with  their 
jealousy  for  the  honor  of  John,  there  was 
mingled  a  desire  to  know  more  exactly  his 
relation,  and  their  own,  likewise,  to  Jesus. 
They  were  not  left  in  doubt,  as  the  narrative 
of  the  Evangelist  shows. 

27-30.  Last  Recorbed  Testimony  of 
John  the  Baptist. 

27.  A  man  can  receive  nothing,  except 
it  be  (or,  have  been)  given  him  from  heaven. 
A  universal  truth  which  .J(jhn  enunciates  with 
reference  either  to  himself,  or  to  Jesus,  or  to 
both.    No  man  has  any  claim  to  oflBce,  honor. 


Ch.  III.] 


JOHN. 


107 


28  Ye  yourselves  bear  me  witness,  that  I  said,  "I  am 
not  the  Christ,  but  *tiiat  I  am  sent  before  him. 

29  •'He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom :  hut 
''(he  friend  of  the  bridejirooni,  whieh  staudelh  and 
Leareth  him,  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of  the  bride- 
groom's voice  :  this  my  joy  therefore  is  fulfilled. 


28  heaven.  Ye  yourselves  bear  me  witness,  that  I 
said,  1  am  not  the  Christ,  but  that  I  am  sent  beloro 

29  him.  lie  that  hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom: 
but  the  friend  of  the  bridegroom,  who  staudelh  and 
heareth  him,  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of  the  bride- 
groom's voice :  this  my  joy  therefore  is  made  full. 


oeli.  1:  20,  27....6  M;il.  3  :  1  ;  Murk  1:2;  Luke  1 :  17 e  Matt.  22:2;  2  Cor.  U:  2;  Eph.  5 :  25,  27  ;  Rev.  21 :  9.... d  Cant.  5  :  1. 


or  success.  These  are  all  gifts  from  God,  and 
may  be  increased  or  diminishtsd  tis  he  plea.ses. 
The  principle  is  applied  to  the  priestly  office 
in  Heb.  5:  4.  Forgetfulness  of  it  has  filled 
many  a  heart  with  pain;  remembrance  of  it 
has  filled  many  a  heart  with  peace.  It  is, 
however,  impossible  to  determine  whether 
John  announced  this  principle  because  it  was 
applicable  to  himself,  or  because  it  was  ap- 
plicable to  Jesus,  or  because  it  was  applicable 
to  both.  But,  in  view  of  the  whole  context, 
we  believe  it  safe  to  adopt  the  last  hypothesis. 
The  change  which  was  taking  place  in  public 
sentiment,  by  which  Jesus  was  increasing  and 
John  decreasing  in  importance,  had  its  source 
in  the  counsels  of  heaven. 

28.  Ye  yourselves  bear  me  witness. 
The  very  men  who  were  now  troubled  at  the 
waning  influence  of  John,  and  the  growing 
influence  of  Jesus,  ought  to  have  anticipated 
this;  for  they  themselves  had  heard  from  the 
lips  of  their  powerful  teacher  words  which 
foreshadowed  what  was  now  coming  to  pass. 
He  had  done  what  he  could  to  prepare  them 
for  it.  That  I  said,  I  (myself)  am  not  the 
Christ,  but  that  I  am  (or,  have  been)  sent 
before  him.  Referring  probably  to  his  an- 
swer to  the  deputation  from  the  Pharisees 
(i:i9--'8).  An  answer  the  substance  of  which 
had  been  repeated  more  than  once.  It  ap- 
pears therefore  that  some  of  those  who  came 
to  John  from  the  dispute  with  a  Jew  had 
been  his  disciples  for  a  considerable  time; 
yet  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  they  were 
present  when  he  cried  :  "  Behold,  the  Lamb 
of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world!  " 

But  why  had  not  John  sent  his  disciples  to 
Jesus  from  the  hour  when  he  knew  him  to  be 
the  Christ?  Or  why  had  he  baptized  men 
who  were  not  yet  ready  to  follow  Jesus? 
Doubtless  because  this  was  his  mission  ;  be- 
cause he  was  sent  to  lead  men  to  repentance 
as  the  best  preparation  for  the  Messiah,  rather 
than  to  convince  them  that  Jesus  was  the 
Messiah.  Christ  himself  proposed  to  furnish 
the  evidence  of  his  Messiahship,  and  it  was  to 


be  better  evidence  than  even  John  could  give 
(5:36,37).  It  is  not  therefore  surprising  that 
John's  ministry  continued  essentially  un- 
changed to  the  last,  whether  he  taught  that 
the  Christ  was  now  coming,  or  that  he  had 
already  appeared. 

The  pronoun  "him"  {Uilvov)  is  supposed 
to  refer,  not  to  the  Christ  of  the  preced- 
ing clause,  but  to  Jesu.s,  as  described  in 
ver.se  26.  It  means  "that  one"  of  whom 
you  have  spoken.  (So  Bengel,  Liicke,  De 
Wette,   Meyer,    Lange,    Alford.) 

29,  He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the 
bridegroom.  By  the  bride  is  here  meant 
the  true  people  of  God;  and  the  language 
of  John  is  to  this  efl^ect :  From  the  fact  that 
multitudes  are  flocking  to  Jesus,  and  becom- 
ing his  disciples,  j'ou  ought  to  infer  that  he  is 
their  Lord;  for  he  who  has  the  bride  is  the 
bridegroom.  There  is  no  article  before  bride- 
groom in  the  Greek  original ;  it  is  therefore 
the  predicate,  and  the  interpretation  now 
■given  is  required  by  the  language.  But  the 
friend  of  the  bridegroom,  which  (or,  wAo) 
standeth  and  heareth  him,  rejoiceth 
greatly  (or,  with  joy)  because  of  the 
bridegroom's  voice.  According  to  Jew- 
ish custom,  the  business  of  negotiating  and 
completing  a  marriage  was  entrusted  to  a 
friend  of  the  bridegroom;  and  therefore, 
when  at  the  wedding  he  heard  the  voice  of 
the  bridegroom  conversing  with  the  bride, 
he  rejoiced  at  the  successful  accomplishment 
of  the  task  committed  to  him.  "To  rejoice 
with  joy  is  to  rejoice  greatly,  with  joy,  and 
joy  only."— (Schafl\)  The  beautiful  figure 
which  John  here  uses  to  set  forth  the  rela- 
tion of  Christ  to  his  people  is  found  in  the 
Old  Testament  as  well  as  in  the  New  (isa.  54:5; 

Hos. 2:19,20:    Ps.45;    Eph.5:.S2;    Rev. 19:7;    21:2.9);     but, 

in  using  this  figure,  he  alone  assigns  a  place 
to  the  friend  of  the  bridegroom.     Yet  the 

place  which  he  assigns  to  himself,  as  "the 
friend  of  the  bridegroom,"  is  one  that  he 
nobly  and  truly  filled;  and  the  addition  of 
this  feature  to  the  comparison  does  not  mar 
in  the  least  its  dignity  or  beauty.     This  my 


108 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  III. 


30  He  must  increase,  but  I  nmst  decrease. 

31  "He  that  coiiieth  from  al)ove  'is  above  all:  "he 
that  is  of  the  earth  is  earthly,  and  speaketh  of  the 
earth:  <'he  that  coiueth  from  heaven  is  above  all. 

:V2  And  «what  he  hath  seen  and  heard,  that  he 
testifieth;  and  no  man  receiveth  his  testimony. 


30  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease. 

31  He  that  cometh  from  above  is  above  all :  he  that  is 
of  the  earth  is  of  the  earth,  and  of  the  earth  he 
speaketh:  i  he  that  cometh  from  heaven  is  above 

32  all.  What  he  hath  seen  and  heard,  of  that  he  bear- 
eth  witness ;    aud   no  man   receiveth  his  witness. 


a  ver.  13  ;  ch.  8:  23 6  Matt.  2S :  18:  ch.  1 :  15.  27;  Rnn 

•  wt.  II;  eh.  B :  26 ;  15  :  lo. 1  Some  aucieut  auihoiiti 


9:5....c  1  Cor.  15:  47 d  ch.  6:  33:  1  Cor.  15  :  47  ;  Eph.  1 :  21 ;  Phil  2:9.... 

!  read,  he  that  cometh  from  heaven  beareth  witness  of  what  he  hath  seen  and 
heard. 


joy  therefore   is    fulfilled.      Or,    to    copy  I 
more  closely  the  form  of  the  Greek  expres-  | 
sion  :    This  joy  which  is  mine  has  therefore 
been  madefuU,  i.  e.,  complete.     Not  a  ripple  j 
of   envy   pus.ses  over   the    mighty   prophet's  j 
soul ;  hut  lie  is  glad,  with  a  pure  and  perfect  j 
gladness,  that  the  eyes  of  the  people  are  turn-  I 
ing  to  tlie  King  in  his  beauty.     He  is  satisfied 
with  the  joy  which  belongs  to  himself,  as  the 
friend  of  the  bridegroom. 

30.  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  de- 
crease. By  a  holy  necessity,  grounded  in 
the  ))urpose  of  God,  in  the  nature  of  .  the 
Messiah,  and  in  the  work  which  he  does  for 
the  world  (i:29),  must  the  power,  the  influ- 
ence, and  the  glory  of  Jesus  become  greater 
and  greater  forever.  "Of  the  increase  of  his 
government  and  peace  there  shall  be  no 
end"  (isa. 9:7).  But  by  a  divine  necessity, 
no  less  profound  and  reasonable,  the  import- 
ance of  John's  work  will  decrease,  and  the 
end  of  his  mis.sion  soon  come. 

Are  the  remaining  words  of  this  chapter 
(ver. 31-36)  thosc  of  John  the  Bajitist,  or  those 
of  the  Evangelist?  Many  affirm  that  neither 
the  sentiment  nor  the  style  belongs  to  the 
Baptist,  while  both  direct  us  to  the  Evan- 
gelist. Says  Westcott:  "The  verses  27-30 
are  in  form  clear  and  sharp,  with  echoes  of 
the  abrupt  prophetic  speech.  These  (  3i-:«  ) 
have  a  subtle  undertone  of  thought,  which 
binds  them  together  closelj',  and  carries  them 
forward  to  the  climax  in  ver.  36."  He  al-so 
insists  that  ver.  31  and  32  refer  to  words  of 
the  Lord  in  ver.  11  ff.,  and  ver.  35  to  10:  28, 
29;  a  reference  which  would  have  been  ob- 
vious in  case  of  the  Evangelist,  but  impossible 
in  case  of  the  Baptist;  moreover,  that  it 
would  have  been  unnatural  for  the  Baptist  to 
have  used  the  words  of  ver.  29  in  connection 
with  the  report  made  to  him  in  ver.  26,  and 
his  own  language  in  ver.  27-30;  still  further, 
that  "the  use  of  the  title  'Son'  absolutely 
(ver.  35. 36)  appears  to  be  alien  from  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Baptist"  ;  and  finallj',  that  "the 
aori.sts  in  ver.  83  describe  the  later  experience 


of  Christian  life  (cf.  1:  16)."  These  reasons 
are  sufficient  to  overcome  the  improbability 
that  the  Evangelist  would  have  passed  with- 
out notice  from  the  record  of  the  Baptist's 
wt)rds  to  his  own  testimony  concerning  Jesus. 
Indeed,  the  words  of  the  Baptist  were  a  text 
which  might  easily  suggest  to  him  his  own 
brief,  but  profound  discourse. 

31.  He  that  cometh  from  above,  is 
above  all.  This  language  describe*  Jesus  as 
one  wlio,  from  the  heavenly  world  where  he 
was  from  eternit3',  comes  down  and  draws 
near  to  men  in  his  ever-present  and  continu- 
ous work.  The  word  all  in  the  expression 
is  above  all,  though  probably  masculine, 
does  not  refer,  as  has  been  supposed,  to  a 
single  class  of  men,  viz.,  the  authorized  in- 
terpreters of  God's  will,  but  to  all  men  with- 
out exception.  He  that  is  of  the  earth  is 
earthly,  aud  speaketh  of  the  earth  (better, 
is  of  the  earth,  and  of  the  earth  he  speaketh. 
Rev.  Ver. )  Of,  or/rom,  the  earth,  is  emphatic 
in  the  second  and  third  clauses.  He  that  is 
of  the  earth — let  it  be  remembered — of  the 
earth  is  he,  and  therefore  from  the  earth  he 
s])eaks,  i.  e.,  from  an  earthly  stand-point  and 
experience.  Such  a  man  cannot  speak  as  one 
from  heaven  ;  for  he  has  never  been  there, 
and  is  a  stranger  to  the  experience  of  that 
higher  world.  The  Evangelist  does  not  here 
deny  his  own  inspiration,  or  affirm  that  his 
teaching  is  confined  to  earthlj'  things;  but  he 
confesses  that  he  cannot  bear  witness  of  heav- 
enlj'  things,  or  teach  more  than  is  given  him 
by  another.  He  that  cometh  from  heaven 
is  above  all.  An  emphatic  repetition  to  ])re- 
pare  the  minds  of  his  hearers  for  the  next 
statement. 

32.  And  Avhat  he  hath  seen  and  heard, 
i.  e.,  in  heaven,  before  his  appearance  among 
men.  This  interpretation  is  required  hy  the 
context.  By  the  use  of  the  perfect  tense, 
"hath  seen  and  heard,"  the  past  is  closely 
connected  with  the  present.  That  he  tes- 
tifieth. For  one  who  has  seen  and  heard,  is 
competent  to  bear  witness.     His  knowledge  is 


Ch.  III.] 


JOHN. 


109 


33  He  that  hath  received  his  testimony  "  hath  set 
to  his  seal  that  (iod  is  true. 

34  'For  he  wliom  (_>(xl  hath  sent  speaketh  the  words 
of  God:  for  God  giveth  uot  the  Spirit  =by  measure 
unto  him. 

35  "^The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all 
things  into  his  hand. 

36  ^He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting 
life:  and  he  that  believetli  not  the  Son  shall  not  see 
life;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him. 


33  He  that  hath  received  his  witness  hath  set  his  seal 

34  to  this,  that  God  is  true.     For  lie  whom  (iod  hath 
sent .speaketli  tlie  words  of  (iod:  for  lie  givetli  not 

3-5  the  Spirit  by  measure.     The  Fallier  loveth  the  Son, 

3G  and  bath  given  all  things  into  his  hand.     He  that. 

bolievfth  on  the  Son  hath  eternal  life;  but  he  that 

'obeyeth  not  the  Son  shall   not  see  life,   but  the 

wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him. 


a  Rom.  3  :  4  ;  1  John  : 


:  10 h  cli.  7:  16 c  ch.  1 :  16 d  Matt.  11 :  27;  2K  :  18;  Liike  10:  2;;  cli.  5  :  20.  22  ;  i:i:  3;  17:  2;  Heb. 

e  Hiib.  2:4;  ch.  1  :  12  ;  6 :  47  ;  ver.  15.  16 ;  Rom.  1 :  17  ;  1  John  5 ;  10. 1  Or,  belieoetit  not. 


original  and  positive.  And  no  man  re- 
ceiveth  his  testimony.  A  hyperbole,  re- 
vealing deep  sadness  on  tlie  part  of  the 
Evangelist  because  so  few  had  received  the 
Lord  in  faith.  "The  close  of  the  apostolic 
age,  was  a  period  of  singular  darkness  and 
hopelessness." — Westcott.  So  few,  as  com- 
pared with  the  world  of  mankind,  had  ac- 
cepted the  gospel,  that  it  seemed  as  if  no  one 
was  willing  to  believe. 

33.  He  that  hath  received  his  testi- 
mony. By  this  expression  the  Evangelist 
qualities  the  exaggeration  of  his  previous 
statement.  There  were  indeed  some,  yet 
very  few  in  comparison  with  the  whole 
world,  who  had  welcomed  Jesus  as  the  Mes- 
siah, and  had  accepted  his  word  as  divine. 
Hath  set  to  his  seal  that  God  is  true 
(better,  hnth  set  his  seal  to  this,  that  God  is 
true).  "To  set  a  seal,"  or  "to  seal,"  is  here 
used  in  a  figurative  sense,  and  means  to  ratify, 
confirm,  or  solemnly  declare.  The  substance 
of  what  is  ratified  or  declared  is  this :  that 
God  is  true.  (See  John  6:  27  ;  Koin.  4:11; 
15:  28;    1  Cor.  9:  2;  2  Cor.  1:  22;  Eph.l:  l-S.) 

34.  For  he  whom  God  hath  sent  (rather, 
sent)  speaketh  the  words  of  God.  Since 
Jesus  is  the  interpreter  of  God  to  men,  to  re- 
ceive his  testimony  as  true,  is  to  acknowledge 
the  supreme  veracity  of  God.  For  God  giv- 
eth not  the  Spirit  by  measure.  This  state- 
ment assigns  a  reason  for  the  preceding  one. 
It  must  therefore  show  why  the  Sent  of  God 
is  to  be  regarded  as  speaking  the  words  of 
God.  Hence  the  giving  of  the  Spirit  here 
mentioned  inust  be  a  giving  of  the  Spirit 
to  Jesus,  the  Sent  of  God.  Even  the  Bap- 
tist had  witnessed  the  descent  of  the  Spirit, 
in  the  form  of  a  dove,  to  remain  upon  Christ. 
(See  note  on  1:  34.)  Meyer  holds  that  this 
is  a  general  proposition,  meaning  that  God 
does  not  give  his  Spirit  in  the  same  measure 
to  all,  but  rather  to  one  more  of  the  Spirit, 
and  to  another  less,  as  he  pleased  (i  Cor.  12: 7  sq ). 


But  Jesus,  in  view  of  his  origin  and  work, 
must  have  received  the  fullness  of  the  Spirit. 

35.  The  Father  loveth  the  Son.  Even 
John  the  Baptist  had  heard  the  voice  from 
heaven:  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom 
I  am  well  pleased"  (Matt. .3: 17).  But  it  would 
perhaps  have  been  more  natural  for  him  to 
say,  loveth  his  Son,  than  to  say,  loveth  the 
Son.  And  hath  given  all  things  into  his 
hand.  "We  need  not  be  surprised,"  says 
Tholuck,  "that,  with  the  absolute  love  of  the 
Father  to  the  Son,  he  imparts  to  him,  not 
only  the  Spirit,  but  absolutely  all  things." 
This  statement,  if  made  by  the  Evangelist, 
was  probably  founded  on  the  words  of  Jesus 

himself  (Matt.  11:27;  28:18;  John  13:  3;  17:  1,2). 

36.  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath 
everlasting  (or,  eternal)  life.  Observe,  then, 
that  eternal  life  begins  here,  and  is  condi- 
tioned on  faith  in  the  Son  of  God.  It  is 
therefore  something  above  and  beyond  mere 
conscious  existence;  it  is  a  normal  and  blessed 
fellowship  with  God,  as  well  as  with  men. 
And  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son.  It  has 
been  asserted  that  the  word  translated,  be- 
lieveth not(d7reiJuv),  should  be  rendered  "dis- 
obej^eth,"  or  "disbelieveth,"  on  the  ground 
that  a  more  hostile  attitude  to  Christ  than 
one  of  mere  unbelief  is  referred  to.  But  un- 
belief implies  disobedience  as  certainly  as  dis- 
belief To  neglect  the  Saviour  is  to  reject 
him.  For  it  is  the  duty  of  men  to  believe 
in  him.  Shall  not  see  life.  Either  here 
or  hereafter.  Men  who  flatter  themselves 
that  the  world  to  come  will  bring  some  kind 
of  change  in  this  respect,  so  that  sin  will  be 
consistent  with  true  peace,  disregard  the  plain 
language-  of  Scripture.  But  the  wrath  of 
God  abideth  on  him.  He  has  been  already 
judged  (ver.  \^,supra),  and  the  displeasure  of 
God  is  even  now  coming  down  and  resting 
upon  him.  Thus  we  are  plainly  taught  the 
necessity  of  believing  in  Christ.  Faith  in 
him  is  the  only  means  of  deliverance  from 


110 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IV. 


CHAPTEE IV. 


WHEN  therefore  the  Lord  knew  how  the  Pharisees 
had  heard  lliat  Jesus  made  and  "baptized  more 
disciples  than  John, 

2  (Though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  dis- 
ciples,) 


1  When  therefore  the  Lord  knew  how  that  the 
Pharisees  had   heard  that  Jesus  was  making  and 

2  baptizing  more  disciples  than  John  (although  Jesus 


the  "wrath  of  God,"  that  arises  from  his 
steadfast  and  holy  opposition  to  sin,  revealed 
in  the  moral  nature  of  man,  and  in  the  uni- 
form testimony  of  Scripture. 


Ch.  IV.  1-4.    Jesus  Keturns  Through 
Samaria  into  Galilee,  Dec,  a.  d.  27. 
1.  When  therefore  the  Lord  knew  how 

(or,  tliat)  the  Pharisees  had  heard.     How 

the  Lord  came  to  know  this,  whether  by 
supernatural  or  by  natural  means,  the  Evan- 
gelist does  not  state.  But  the  word  there- 
lore  implies  that  there  was  a  connection 
between  something  already  referred  to,  and 
this  knowledge  of  Jesus.  That  something 
may  have  been  no  more  than  the  facts  re- 
corded in  3:  22,  23;  for  on  these  facts  de- 
pended the  report  which  tlie  Pharisees  had 
heard,  and  the  Saviour's  knowledge  that  they 
had  heard  it.  If  this  is  all  to  which  the 
therefore  points  back,  the  knowledge  of  Jesus 
may  have  been  strictly  supernatural  in  origin. 
But  the  something  referred  to  may  embrace 
all  the  facts  of  the  narrative  from  3  :  22  to  3  : 
30,  or  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  And  if  so, 
as  seems  quite  probable,  the  Jew  spoken  of 
(3:25)  may  have  been  a  Pharisee,  and  his 
words  may  have  revealed  to  the  disciples  of 
John  what  the  Pharisees  had  heard,  and  with 
what  feelings  thej'  had  heard  it ;  while  some 
of  these  disciples  of  John,  moved  by  the  last 
great  testimony'  of  their  master,  may  have 
repaired  to  Jesus  and  reported  all  they  had 
leiirned.  In  this  case  the  knowledge  of  Jesus 
would  have  been  natural  in  its  origin.  B3' 
the  word  Pharisees,  in  this  verse,  must  be 
meant  the  leaders  of  that  sect  in  Jerusalem  ; 
for  no  doubt  some  of  tlie  Pharisees  resided  in 
the  country',  and  were  direct  witnesses  of 
the  success  of  Jesus.  Several  of  the  early 
manuscripts,  versions,  and  Fathers,  have 
"Jesus,"  instead  of  the  Lord,  in  the  first 
clause  of  this  verse  ;  but  a  preponderance  of 
evidence  favors  the  common  reading.  That 
Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples 
than  John  (more  exactly,  was  making  and 


baptizingl  It  will  be  observed  that  making 
disciples  is  here  distinguished  from  baptiz- 
ing them — a  distinction  which  would  be  un- 
necessary and  unnatural  if  they  were  made 
disciples  by  means  of  baptism.  Hence  this 
language  does  not  agree  with  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration.  Notice,  also,  the 
present  tense  of  the  Greek  verbs,  reproducing 
the  report  as  it  came  to  the  Pharisees.^ 

2.  Though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not, 
but  his  disciples.  This  is  not,  strictly  speak- 
ing, a  correction  of  the  report  heard  by  the 
Pharisees,  for  it  is  a  maxim  that  "what  one 
does  by  another,  he  does  himself"  ;  but  it  is 
rather  an  explanation  of  the  manner  in  which 
Jesus  baptized  (cf  3 :  22).  But  why  is  this 
explanation  made?  Doubtless  because  Jesus 
refrained  on  principle  from  baptizing  with 
his  own  hands;  either  (1)  because  baptizing 
in  water  is  a  ministerial  act,  as  compared  with 
baptizing  in  the  Spirit,  and  should  there- 
fore  be   performed  by   the    servants,    rather 

>  [A  singular  various  reading  here  occurs.  The  word 
"  than  "  (jj),  is  omitted  by  a  B  (first  hand)  i.  g  r,  a  few 
cursives,  once  by  Origen,  and  by  Epiphanius.  The 
Greek  could  then  only  mean  "  heard  that  Jesus  was 
making  quite  a  number  of  disciples,  and  John  was  bap- 
tizing tliem."  This  would  seem  intrinsically  inadmis- 
sible, as  stating  what  cannot  possibly  be  true,  especially 
as  it  would  make  ver.  2  utterly  meaningless.  Yet  let  it 
be  remembered  that  intrinsic  probabilities  must  always 
l>e  cautiously  handled,  for  an  idea  at  first  very  startling 
might  nevertheless  be  irue,  and  might,  by  degrees, 
come  to  appear  quite  possible,  and  even  probable.  It  is 
easy  to  account,  on  transcriptional  grounds,  for  the  in- 
sertion of  "  than  "  (ij).  On  the  other  hand,  how  can  we 
account  for  its  omission?  Hort  thinks  of  nothing  but 
a  slip  in  copying,  from  thesimilarity  of  the  Greek  parti- 
cle to  the  closing  sound  of  the  foregoing  word,  and 
justly  reckons  it  strange  that  such  a  slip  should  pass 
into  so  many  good  documents.  But  in  Mark  4:  21,  an 
evident,  error  in  copying,  "under  the  stand"  (a  "me- 
chanical repetition"  of  the  "under,"  which  twice 
occurs  just  before),  is  found  in  N  B  (first  hand)  in  the 
old  uncial  represented  by  13,  09,  and  34G,  in  3.S,  and,  we 
may  now  add,  in  the  newly  discovered  2 — the  Codex 
Rossaneusis — making  a  case  nearly  as  remarkable  as 
that  before  ns.  One  cannot  here  feel  quite  satisfied, 
but  we  seem  compelled  to  retain  "than." — B.] 


Ch.  IV.] 


JOHK 


111 


3  He  left  .Tudoa,  and  departed  aRain  into  Galilee. 

4  And  he  niiust  needs  go  tUrougli  .Samaria. 

.5  Then  conieth  he  to  a  city  of  Saiuaria,  which  is 
called  Sychar,  near  to  the  parcel  of  ground  "  that  Jacob 
gave  to  his  sou  Joseph. 


3  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples),  he  left  Ju- 

4  da;a,   and  departed  again    into    Uulilee.      And    he 

5  must  needs  pass  through  Samaria.  So  he  Cometh  to 
a  city  ot  Samaria,  called  Sychar,  near  to  the  parcel 
of  ground  that  Jacob  gave  to  his  son  Joseph  :  and 


a  Gen.  33  :  19  ;  48  :  22  ;  Jo>b.  24 :  32. 


than  by  the  Lord,  or  (2)  because  any  persons 
baptized  by  the  hands  of  Jesus  would  have 
been  in  danger  of  attacliing  undue  import- 
ance to  that  circumstance,  and  of  falling 
thereby  into  the  sin  of  spiritual  pride.  The 
former  reason  commends  itself  to  Bengel, 
Meyer,  Lange,  Godet,  and  others ;  but  the 
latter  is  more  likely  to  have  influenced  the 
Saviour.  For  to  him  decorum  was  less  than 
the  spiritual  safety  and  brotherly  love  of  his 
disciples.  Weiss  supposes  that  he  could  not 
himself  baptize  with  water  without  appearing 
to  renounce  an.y  claim  to  being  the  Great,  r 
One,  who  was  to  baptize  in  the  Spirit.  Doubt- 
ful. 

3.  He  left  Judea,  and  departed  again 
into  Galilee.  The  occasion  for  his  departure 
is  given  in  the  first  verse.  And  from  the  fact 
that  the  Lord  left  Judea  because  the  Phari- 
sees had  heard,  as  he  knew,  of  his  success  in 
making  disciples,  it  may  be  certainly  inferred 
that  he  saw  in  their  hearts  or  conduct  signs 
of  hostility  to  himself.  The  centre  of  their 
power  was  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  territory  in 
which  their  influence  was  controlling  was 
Judea.  Inasmuch  therefore  as  the  hour  of 
his  death  was  still  distant,  he  withdrew  for  a 
time  from  this  part  of  the  land.  It  has  been 
conjectured  that  he  also  discontinued  the  ])rac- 
tice  of  baptizing  his  disciples — either  through 
fear  of  arousing  opposition,  or  from  some 
other  cause.  But  there  is  no  evidence  of 
the  fact,  and  therefore  no  reason  to  seek  for 
a  cause.  "That  he  gave  up  baptizing  when 
he  left  Judea,  because  the  imprisonment  of 
John  had  brought  a  ban  of  uncleanness  upon 
Israel"  fLange),  is  a  capricious  fancy.  "That 
those  who  were  converted  (as  ver.  53)  should 
be  baptized,  was  a  matter  of  course  (comp. 
3:  5)."  —  (Mej-er.)  Yet,  if  the  disciples 
of  Jesus  continued  until  the  end  of  his  min- 
istry the  practice  of  baptizing  those  who 
professed  to  receive  him  as  the  Messiah,  it 
is  surprising  that  the  Evangelists  nowhere  al- 
lude to  this  fact.  It  is  therefore  probable 
that  for  some  reason  the  practice  was  inter- 
rupted for  a  time,  to  be  resumed  after  the 
Lord's  death  and  resurrection,  when  its  full 


significance  could  be  more  readily  perceived. 
Whether  the  impri.«onment  of  John,  which 
seems  to  have  taken   place  about  this  time 

(Matl.  4:12;  Maikl:  Hj  Luke4:  14),     had     anything    tO 

do  with  the  Saviour's  departure  into  Galilee, 
is  uncertain. 

4.  And  he  must  needs  go  through  Sa- 
maria. Was  this  necessity  geographical  or 
moral?  If  geographical,  as  interpreters  gen- 
erally assume,  Jesus  could  not  have  been 
near  the  Jordan  when  he  started  on  his  way 
to  Galilee,  but  must  have  been  in  the  central, 
southern,  or  western  part  of  Judea.  And 
there  is  no  reason  to  deny  that  he  was  thus 
remote  from  the  Jordan,  so  that  the  nearest 
way  to  Galilee  was  through  Samaria.  But 
there  is,  on  the  other  hand,  no  special  indi- 
cation of  haste  in  his  journey  (see  ver.  40), 
while  the  result  of  his  labors  in  Sychar  was 
such  as  to  justify  the  belief  that  a  divine 
necessity  led  him  to  select  that  way,  that 
the  plan  and  purpose  of  his  ministry  moved 
him  to  go  through  Samaria  to  Galilee.  It 
was  probably  safer,  or,  at  least,  less  annoying 
to  go  from  Judea,  through  Samaria,  to  Gali- 
lee, than  to  go  from  Galilee  through  Samaria, 
to  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  (Luke9:52).  Tor  a 
bitter  hostility,  springing  from  ditFerences  of 
religious  belief  and  worship,  separated  the 
Jews  from  the  Samaritans;  and  the  latter 
would  be  more  likely  to  manifest  their  hos- 
tility when  they  encountered  the  former  go- 
ing up  to  the  temple,  than  when  they  saw 
them  going  northward  to  Galilee. 

5-20.  Conversation  With  a  Samari- 
tan Woman  at  Jacob's  Well. 

5.  Then  (so,  or  therefore)  cometh  he  to  a 
city  of  Samaria,  which  is  called  Sychar. 
Many  Biblical  scholars,  including  Dr.  Ed- 
ward Eobinson,  believe  that  Sj^char  was,  in 
the  time  of  Christ,  the  name  of  the  ancient 
Shechem ;  and  they  generally  propose  to 
account  for  the  change  of  name  by  assuming 
(1)  that  Sychar  was  "a  provincial  mispronun- 
ciation of  Shechem,"  or,  (2)  that  it  was  "a 
term  of  reproach,"  meaning  "a  lie,"  with 
reference  to  the  Samaritan  faith.  Others, 
with  greater  reason,  hold  that  it  was  a  small 


112 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IV. 


6  Now  Jacob's  well  was  there.  Jesus  therefore,  being 
wearied  with  /*(.?  journey,  sat  thus  ou  the  well ;  and  it 
was  about  the  sixth  hour. 

7  There  conieth  a  woman  of  Samaria  to  draw  water: 
Jesus  saith  uuto  her,  (jive  me  to  drink. 


6  Jacob's  1  well   was  there.      Jesus  therefore,  being 
wearied  with  his  journey,  sat  2  thus  by  the  i  well. 

7  It   was  about  the  sixth    hour.      There    conieth    a 
woman  of  Samaria  to  draw  water:  Jesus  saith  unto 


1  Gr.  ipring  :  aud  so  in  ver.  14 ;  but  not  in  ver.  11,  12. . .  .2  Or.  a>  he  was. 


city  situated  farther  east  than  Shechem,  and 
nearer  to  Jacob's  well.  For  beautiful  de- 
scriptions of  Shechem  and  its  environs,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  Hackett's  "Illustrations 
of  Scripture,"  p.  192  sq.,  and  "Smith's  Dic- 
tionary of  the  Bible,''  under  "Shechem." 
Near  to  the  parcel  of  ground  that  Jacob 
gave  to  his  son  Joseph.  With  this  state- 
ment may  be  compared  Gen.  33:  19;  and 
Josh.  24:  32.  From  the  former,  it  appears, 
that  Jacob  bought  a  parcel  of  ground  near 
Shechem  for  a  hundred  pieces  of  silver;  and 
from  the  latter,  that  the  bones  of  Joseph, 
when  brought  up  from  Egypt,  were  buried  in 
that  piece  of  ground,  which  had  become  the 
possession  of  the  children  of  Joseph.  These 
two  facts  agree  with  the  tradition  that  Joseph 
received  this  land  by  gift  from  his  father. 
6.  Now  Jacob's  well  (or  spring)  was 
there.  Says  Dr.  Hackett:  "The  well  is  near 
the  western  edge  of  the  plain,  just  in  front  of 
the  opening  between  the  hills  where  Nablous, 
the  site  of  Shechem,  is  situated.  Before  me, 
therefore,  as  I  sat  there,  was  the  town  from 
which  the  people  came  forth,  on  the  report  of 
the  woman,  to  see  and  hear  the  prophet  for 
themselves.  Behind  me  were  the  fields,  then 
waving  with  grain;  but  at  the  earlier  season 
of  the  year,  when  Christ  was  there,  recentlj'^ 
ploughed  and  sowed.  There  is  Gerizim  just 
at  hand,  at  which  the  woman  pointed  at  the 
moment,  o"r  glanced  with  the  eye,  as  she  ut- 
tered these  words:  'In  this  mountain  our 
fathers  worshiped.'  In  short,  John's  narra- 
tive of  the  occurrence  at  the  well  forms  a  pic- 
ture, for  which  one  sees  that  the  perfect 
frame-work  is  provided,  as  he  looks  around 
him,  in  front  of  the  hills  which  enclose  the 
modern  Nablous.  .  .  .  The  original  mouth  of 
the  well  is  no  longer  visible  on  the  outside  ;  a 
vaulted  roof  having  been  built  over  it, 
through  which  it  is  necessary  to  descend,  in 
order  to  reach  the  proper  entrance  of  the 
excavation.  The  aperture  is  barely  large 
enough  to  allow  a  person  to  crowd  his  body 
through.  I  have  no  doubt  whatever  of  the 
identification  of  this  well ;  the  various  local 
proofs  which  point  to  that  spot,  and  the  uni- 


formity of  the  tradition,  furnish  an  amount 
of  testimony  respecting  the  question,  too 
strong  to  be  set  aside."  (111.  of  Scrip.,  p. 
199  sq. )  "The  well,"  remarks  Porter,  "is 
deep — seventy-five  feet  when  last  measured — 
and  there  was,  probably,  a  considerable  ac- 
cumulation of  rubbish  at  the  bottom.  It  is 
entirely  excavated  in  the  solid  rock,  per- 
fectly round,  nine  feet  in  diameter,  with  the 
sides  hewn  smooth  and  regular.  Sometimes 
it  contains  a  few  feet  of  water  but  at  others, 
it  is  quite  dry."  (Handbook,  p.  840.)  But 
this  statement  as  to  the  "solid  rock"  is  con- 
troverted. "  Lieut.  Anderson,  who  descended 
to  the  bottom  in  Ma}',  18G6,  found  it  then 
seventy-five  feet  deep,  and  quite  dry.  'It  is,' 
he  says,  'lined  throughout  with  rough  ma- 
sonry, as  it  is  dug  in  alluvial  soil.'  "  (War- 
ren's "Recovery  of  Jerusalem,"  pp.  464  sq. ) 
Jesus  therefore,  being  wearied  Avith  his 
(or  the)  journey,  sat  thus  on  the  Avell. 
He  had  become  very  weary  by  the  toilsome 
way,  and  was  now,  as  the  perfect  participle 
(KCKOTTiaKios)  indicates,  feeling  the  eflTect  of  his 
long-continued  exertion.  His  weariness  is 
also  brought  to  mind  again  b}'  the  adverb 
thus.  It  was  about  the  sixth  hour. 
That  is,  probably,  about  6  p.  M.  ;  a  note  of 
time,  which  is  partly  due  to  the  interest 
which  the  Evangelist  felt  in  the  events  of  that 
day ;  and  perhaps  still  more,  to  his  recollec- 
ti<m  of  the  physical  exhaustion  of  Christ, 
occasioned  by  a  long  journey  from  morning 
till  near  evening.  How  clearly  is  the  human 
nature  of  the  Lord  revealed  by  his  weariness! 
For  soiTie  reason  the  disciples  appear  to  have 
been  less  exhausted  than  their  Lord. 

7.  There  conieth  a  woman  of  Samaria 
to  draw  water.  By  a  woman  of  Samaria 
is  meant  a  native  of  the  province,  not  of  the 
city  of  that  name.  Where  this  woman  re- 
sided, whether  in  S3'char  itself,  or  in  some 
hamlet  near  the  well,  is  not  known.  Nablous 
is  said  to  be  about  a  mile  and  a  half  from 
Jacob's  well ;  and  if  it  occupies  the  site  of 
Sj'char,  no  one,  except  for  a  special  reason, 
would  come  so  far  to  obtain  water.  Porter 
says,  however:   "The  mere  fact  of  the  well 


Ch.  IV.] 


JOHN. 


113 


8  (For  his  disciples  were  gone  away  unto  the  city  to 
buy  meat.) 

9  Then  saith  the  woman  of  Samaria  unto  him,  How 
is  it  that  thou,  being  a  .Jew,  askest  drink  of  me,  which 
am  a  woman  of  Samaria?  "for  the  Jews  have  no  deal- 
ings with  the  Samaritans. 

10  .Ifsus  answered  and  said  unto  her.  If  thou  knewest 
the  gift  of  God,  and  who  it  is  that  saith  to  thee,  (jive 
me  to  drink ;  thou  wouldest  have  asked  of  him,  and  he 
would  have  given  thee  'living  water. 


8  her,  Give  me  to  drink.    For  his  disciples  were  gone 

9  away  into  the  city  to  buy  food.  The  Samaritan 
woman  therefore  saith  unto  him.  How  is  it  that 
thou,  being  a  Jew,  askest  drink  of  me,  wlio  am  a 
Samaritan  woman?    ('For  Jews  have  no  dealings 

10  with  Samaritans).  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto 
her.  If  thou  knewest  the  gift  of  God,  and  who  it  is 
that  saith  to  thee.  Give  me  to  drink;  thou  wouldest 
have  asked  of  him,  and  he  would  have  given  thee 


1:3;  Jer.  2  :  1.) ;  Zech.  13  :  1 ;  14 :  8.- 
alings  with  Samaritans. 


eut  authorities  ouiit. 


having  been  Jacob's,  would  have  brought 
numbers  to  it,  had  the  distance  been  twice  as 
great.  And  even  independent  of  its  history, 
some  little  superiority'  in  the  quality  of  the 
water,  such  as  we  might  expect  in  a  deep 
well,  would  have  attracted  the  Orientals,  who 
are,  and  have  always  been,  epicures  in  this 
element."  But  it  does  not  appear  that  many 
resorted  to  this  well ;  and  it  is  unnecessary  to 
assume  that  the  woman,  though  acquainted 
with  some  of  the  people  of  Sychar,  had  her 
residence  in  that  city  ;  much  less  is  it  neces- 
sary to  identify  Sychar  with  Shechem.  It  was 
a  nearer  village.  Jesus  saith  unto  her :  Give 
me  to  drink.  A  request  occasioned  partly  by 
physical  thirst,  and  partly,  we  may  believe, 
by  an  ever-present  desire  to  communicate 
spiritual  good.  It  illustrates  the  Saviour's 
wisdom  in  making  even  the  wants  of  his  own 
humanity  a  means  of  approach  to  the  souls  of 
men  (comp.  Mark  11:  12-14).  To  ask  of  one 
a  small  favor,  in  fitting  circumstances,  is  at 
least  to  express  confidence  in  his  kindness, 
and  thus  to  open  the  way  for  friendly  inter- 
course. For  no  man  wishes  any  expression 
of  goodness  from  a  person  whom  he  is  re- 
solved to  treat  as  an  enemy  ;  much  less  does 
any  one  wish  to  be  under  obligation  to  a  per- 
son whom  he  hates. 

8.  For  his  disciples  were  gone  aAvay 
into  the  city  to  buy  meat  {or,  food).  The 
absence  of  his  disciples  is  here  assigned  as  a 
reason  (for  ydi)  why  Christ  made  the  request 
of  the  preceding  verse  ;  possibly  because  they 
had  taken  with  them  some  apparatus  of 
their  own  for  drawing  water.  This  reason 
does  not,  however,  exclude  the  deeper  ones 
mentioned  under  verse  7.  It  appears,  from 
the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  that,  notwith- 
standing their  enmity,  Jews  and  Samaritans 
were  accustomed  to  trade  with  one  another  for 
the  necessaries  of  life,  and  that  even  the 
former  would  eat  that  which  was  purchased 
from  the  latter. 


9.  How  is  it  that  thou,  being  a  Jew, 
askest  drink  of  me,  which  am  a  woman 
of  Samaria?  (Lit.,  Who  am  a  Samaritan 
woman?)  The  woman  inferred,  probably 
from  his  dialect,  that  Jesus  was  a  Jew  ; 
and  Alford  thinks  there  is  a  sort  of  play- 
ful triumph  in  her  question,  as  if  she  had 
said:  "Even  a  Jew,  when  weary  and  athirst, 
can  humble  himself  to  ask  drink  of  a  Samari- 
tan woman."  In  like  manner  Meyer  detects 
a  vein  of  badinage  in  her  question.  Perhaps 
it  was  rather  a  question  of  serious  surprise  at 
the  kind  and  respectful  tone  with  which  the 
Saviour  preferred  his  request  to  a  Samaritan 
woman.  With  this  view  the  answer  of  Jesus 
well  agrees.  For  the  Jews  have  no  deal- 
ings Avith  the  Samaritans.  Many  exposi- 
tors consider  this  to  bo  a  remark  of  the  Evan- 
gelist, accounting  for  the  woman's  answer, 
and  inserted  for  the  benefit  of  persons  not 
familiar  with  Jewish  history.  It  may  be  so, 
yet  there  is  no  conclusive  reason  for  thinking 
that  the  woman  herself  might  not  have  ut- 
tered these  words.  "Would  it  have  been  un- 
natural for  her,  in  the  circumstances,  to  trace 
the  non-intercourse  to  the  Jews  rather  than 
to  the  Samaritans,  since  she  was  expressing 
her  surprise  that  a  Jew  had  forgotten  it?  On 
the  other  hand,  the  explanation  is  one  that 
the  Evangelist  himself  might  naturally  make 
—perhaps,  a  little  more  naturally  than  the 
woman.  It  is  omitted  by  Tischendorf  (8th 
Ed.),  and  may,  possibly,  be  an  interpolation; 
but  the  weight  of  evidence  is  strongly  in  its 
favor. 

10.  If  thou  knewest  (or,  hodst  known), 
i.  e.,  when  I  was  asking  you,  a  moment  ago, 
for  water.  The  common  translation,  "if 
thou  knewest,"  though  formally  correct,  is 
liable  to  be  misunderstood,  as  if  it  referred 
to  the  present,  the  moment  when  Jesus  made 
the  response.  The  gift  of  God.  This  is 
called  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  living 
water,   and  is  described  by  Calvin  as  iota 


114 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IV. 


11  The  woman  saith  unto  him,  Sir,  thou  hast  notliirig 
to  draw  with,  and  the  well  is  deep:  from  whence  then 
hast  thou  that  living  water? 

12  Art  thou  greater  thaa  our  father  Jacob,  wliich 
gave  us  the  well,  and  drank  thereof  himself,  and  his 
children,  and  his  cattle  ? 


11  living  water.  The  woman  saith  unto  him,  iSir, 
thou  hast  nothing  to  draw  with,  and  the  well  is 
deep:    from   whence  then    hast    thou   that    living 

12  water?  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  Jacob, 
who  gave  us  the  well,  and  drank  thereof  himself, 


renovationis  gratia,  or,  "the  whole  blessing 
of  renewing  grace."  And  who  it  is  that 
saith  to  thee,  Give  me  to  drink,  that  is, 
One  by  whom  the  grace  of  God  is  revealed 
and  imparted  to  men.  Thou  {thyself,  for 
the  pronoun  is  emphatic)  wouldest  have 
asked  of  him.  In  other  words,  not  he, 
but  thou  wouldest  have  been  the  petitioner. 
Notice  the  insertion  of  the  pronoun  thou 
(cru)  in  the  Greek,  which  does  not,  in  such  a 
case,  require  the  pronoun,  except  for  em- 
phasis. And  he  Avould  have  given  thee 
living  water.  By  living  water  is  here 
meant  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  which  is 
renewing,  sanctifying,  peace-giving,  unfail- 
ing. "  By  the  gift  he  means  the  life,  emana- 
ting from  him  ;  and  the  point  of  comparison 
is  its  freshness  and  perennial  character."  — 
(Tholuck. )  Living  water  is  rather  a  figura- 
tive designation  of  the  source  of  that  life, 
and  is  therefore  very  nearly  equivalent  to 
"grace  and  truth,"  by  the  united  influence 
of  which  the  spiritual  life  is  originated  and 
sustained. 

11.  Sir,  thou  hast  nothing  to  draAV 
with,  and  the  well  is  deep.  Not  per- 
ceiving the  spiritual  sense  of  Christ's  lan- 
guage, the  woman  takes  him  to  mean  by  liv- 
ing Avater,  water  welling  up  from  its  source 
in  the  heart  of  the  earth — fresh,  sweet,  spring 
water.  Such  water  might  be  found  at  the 
very  bottom  of  Jacob's  Well;  for  this  was 
not  a  cistern,  a  reservoir,  fed  by  water  from 
the  surface  of  the  ground,  but  a  true  foun- 
tain (n-^yij,  ver.  6),  fed.  by  water  from  the 
depths  of  the  earth,  which  had  been  readied 
by  sinking  the  shaft  {<i>peap)  nearly,  or  quite,  a 
hundred  feet.  In  Maundrell's  time  (March, 
1697)  it  was  one  hundred  and  five  feet  deep, 
and  had  fifteen  feet  of  water  in  it.  Dr. 
Tristram  ("Land  of  Israel,"  p  143,  Ed.  3), 
found  in  it  only  "wet  mud"  in  December, 
but  towards  the  end  of  February  it  was 
"full  of  water."  (Ibid,  p.  401.)  From  this 
source  she  sees  that  Jesus  cannot  draw,  for 
want  of  the  necessary  apparatus,  and  there- 
fore, reminding  him  of  this,  she  asks  :  From 


Avhence  then  hast  thou  that  (or,  the)  living 
water?  "If  thou  canst  not  draw  it  from  the 
bottom  of  the  well  below,  from  what  source 
canst  thou  obtain  it?"  A  pretty  distinct  in- 
timation of  her  want  of  confidence  in  the 
stranger's  power  to  do  what  he  said,  or  at 
least  of  her  feeling  that  his  words  had  been 
somewhat  extravagant. 

12.  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father 
Jacob?  That  is,  greater  in  power,  so  that, 
without  drawing  it  from  the  well,  thou  canst 
furnish  "living  water" — perhaps  by  miracle, 
as  Moses  did  from  the  rock.  Notice  the  em- 
phatic thou,  (<rv),  and  the  interrogative  par- 
ticle (fiij),  which  assumes  that  the  answer 
should  be  in  the  negative.  The  woman  says, 
our  father  Jacob,  because  the  Samaritans 
claimed  to  be  descendants  of  Jacob,  through 
Joseph.  (Josephus  "Ant.,"  VII.  7,  3;  VIII. 
4,  3;  IX.  8,  6.)  Which  (or,  ivho)  gave  us  the 
Avell,  and  drank  thereof  himself,  and  his 
children  (or,  sons},  and  his  cattle  ?  The  pith 
of  these  clauses  is  contained  in  the  statement 
that  Jacob  drank  from  the  well,  and  not  at 
all  in  the  circumstance  that  he  gave  it  to  the 
Samaritans.  Deep  as  it  is,  Jacob  drank  from 
this  well,  but  only  by  drawing  water  there- 
from; thou  canst  not  then  pretend  to  have 
"living  water"  without  the  labor  of  drawing 
it,  unless  thou  art  greater  than  our  father 
Jacob.  It  is,  however,  a  touch  of  nature, 
that  the  woman  dwells  on  the  use  which 
Jacob  made  of  the  well,  by  mentioning  his 
sons,  with  his  flocks  and  herds,  and  especially 
that  she  recalls  the  (traditional)  gift  of  the 
well  to  the  Samaritans;  for  she  was  herself 
a  Samaritan  by  birth,  sympathy,  and  prej- 
udice. 

Many  interpreters  suppose  that,  after  utter- 
ing the  words:  "Whence  then  hast  thou  that 
living  water?"  the  woman's  mind  turned 
rather  to  the  idea  of  some  better  kind  of 
water,  and  that  she  intended  to  say:  "If 
thou  canst  give  better  water  than  this,  thou 
must  be  greater  than  Jacob  our  father.  This 
was  good  enough  for  him  ;  and  thou  canst 
not  pretend  to  be  of  greater  dignity  or  worth 


Ch.  IV.] 


JOHN. 


115 


13  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  her,  Whosoever 
driiiketh  of  tliis  water  shall  thirst  again  : 

14  Bat  "  whosoever  drinkcth  of  the  water  that  I  shall 
give  hiiu  shall  never  thirst ;  but  the  water  that  I  shall 
give  him  'shall  he  in  hiiu  a  well  of  water  springing  up 
into  everlasting  life. 

15  =The  woman  ;saith  unto  him,  Sir,  give  nte  this 
water,  that  I  thirst  not,  neither  come  hither  to  draw. 


13  and  bis  sons,  and  his  cattle?  Jesus  answered  and 
said  unto  her.  Every  one  that  drinketh  of  this  water 

14  shall  thirst  again:  but  whosoever  driuketh  of  the 
water  that  I  shall  give  him  shall  never  thirst;  but 
the  water  that  I  shall  give  him  shall  become  in  him 

15  a  well  of  water  springing  up  unto  eternal  life.  The 
woman  saith  unto  hiiu,  'Sir,  give  me  this  water, 
that  I  thirst  not,  neither  come  all  the  way  hither  to 


a  ch.  6:  35,  58 b  ch.  7  ;  88 c  See  ch.  6:3*;  17:  '2,  3  ;  Rom.  6  :  23  ;  1  John  5:  20.- 


than  he."  But  this  reference  to  the  quality 
of  the  water  does  not  spring  so  naturally  out 
of  the  preceding  question  as  does  the  view 
given   above. 

13.  Whosoever  (or,  every  one  ivho)  drink- 
eth of  this  water  shall  thirst  again. 
Jesus  does  not  suffer  himself  to  be  drawn  into 
a  discussion  of  his  own  greatness  or  power  as 
compared  with  that  of  Jacob.  No  side  issue 
diverts  him  from  the  end  sought  by  this  con- 
verssition.  He  fixes  the  woman's  mind  on  a 
single  point— the  difference  between  the  water 
of  the  well,  and  the  water  which  he  is  ready 
to  give— with  the  evident  purpose  of  leading 
her  from  the  transient  good  to  the  permanent, 
from  the  natural  to  the  spiritual.  This  water, 
referring  to  the  well,  brings  temporary  but 
not  lasting  relief  from  thirst.  Its  effect  soon 
passes  away,  and  leaves  him  who  drinks  of  it 
in  the  same  state  as  before.  Ever  returning 
thirst,  with  no  progress  towards  a  condition 
without  thirst ! — this  must  be  expected,  though 
you  drink  of  this  well. 

14.  But  whosoever  drinketh  of  the 
water  that  I  shall  give  him  shall  never 
thirst.  The  effect  of  my  grace  is  enduring. 
It  does  not  pass  away,  and  leave  him  who 
receives  it  in  the  same  condition  as  before. 
The  old  thirst  of  the  soul,  raging  and  painful, 
will  not  return.  Faintness  of  spirit,  in  view 
o"f  sins  unforgiven,  will  no  more  be  felt.  The 
desire  for  peace,  which  only  God  can  satisfy, 
will  no  longer  rage  unsatisfied  as  before. 
"God  entered  into  my  mind."  says  Augus- 
tine, "sweeter  than  all  pleasure,  brighter 
than  all  light,  higher  than  all  honor."  "Cer- 
tainly," remarks  Bengel,  "that  water,  so  far 
as  its  own  nature  is  concerned,  has  perennial 
virtue;  and  whenever  thirst  returns,  it  is 
from  a  defect  in  the  man,  not  in  the  water." 
"It  is  no  common  water ;  but  water  of  which 
a  man  should  constantly  be  drinking;  and  if 
ho  did  so,  would  constant!}'  be  satisfied,  so 
that  there  would  be  no  recurring  intervals  of 
desire  and  gratification  " — (Hanna.)  "The 
Christian  must  continue  to  drink  of  the  water 


of  life  to  the  end  "— (Schaff).  It  is,  however, 
to  be  remarked  that,  according  to  the  re- 
ceived text,  the  word  drinketh,  in  this 
clause,  represents  a  Greek  verb  in  the  aorist 
subjunctive,  and  therefore  denotes  a  com- 
pleted, not  a  continuous  act.  And  there  is  a 
sense  in  which  a  man  receives  Christ,  or  his 
grace,  once  for  all.  His  condition  is  thereby 
permanently  changed,  and  his  thirst  will 
thenceforth  be  different  from  what  it  was  be- 
fore. (Compare  Isa  12:  3;  Kev.  7:  16,  17; 
21.  6;  22:  1,  2.)  Butthe  Avatcr  that  I  shall 
give  him  will  be  (or,  become)  in  him  a 
well  {i.  e.,  fountain)  of  water,  springing 
up  into  eternal  life.  The  true  believer 
need  not  look  abroad  for  the  fountain  of 
God's  grace;  it  has  been  opened  in  his  own 
heart,  fresh  and  pure  and  sweet.  In  other 
words,  the  Spirit  and  the  truth  of  God  have 
entered  into  the  life  of  his  soul,  and  are  felt 
to  be  an  abiding,  indwelling,  unfailing  source 
of  spiritual  peace,  strength,  and  hope.  He 
can  drink  from  a  fountain  which  Christ  has 
opened  within,  the  refreshing  waters  of  which 
he  will  never  be  able  to  exhaust  in  time  or  in 
eternity.  From  the  grace  and  truth  of 
Christ,  which  he  has  already  experienced, 
he  will  derive  joy  forevermore.  The  blessed 
life  now  begun  will  rise  into  life  eternal. 

15.  Sir,  give  me  this  water,  that  I 
thirst  not  (or,  may  not  thirst),  neither 
come  hither  (or,  all  the  way  hither)  to 
draw.  From  the  last  part  of  this  verse  it 
appears  that  the  woman  did  not  yet  perceive 
the  meaning  of  Christ.  She  knew  too  little 
of  spiritual  good  to  discover  it  at  once  under 
images  of  natural  good.  But  she  was  moved 
by  the  strange  and  serious,  language  of  Christ ; 
she  was  convinced  that  he  had  a  great  bless- 
ing to  impart;  and,  conscious  of  her  toil  in 
bearing  water  from  the  well,  she  asked  for 
that  which  seemed  to  promise  relief  from  this 
toil.  There  is  no  indication  of  levity  or 
irony  in  her  words.  On  the  other  hand,  she 
was  so  far  convinced  of  the  greatness  and 
goodness  of  Christ,   as  to  be  prepared  for  a 


116 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IV. 


16  Jesus  saith  uuto  her,  Go,  call  thy  husband,  and 
come  hither. 

17  The  woman  answered  and  said,  I  have  no  hus- 
band. Jesus  said  uuto  her.  Thou  hast  well  said,  I  have 
no  husband  . 

18  Fur  thou  hast  had  five  husbands;  and  he  whom 
thou  now  hast  is  not  thy  husband  :  in  that  saidst  thou 
truly. 

19  The  woman  saith  unto  him.  Sir,  "I  perceive  that 
thou  art  a  prophet. 


16  draw.    Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Go,  call  thy  husband, 

17  and  come  hither.  The  woman  answered  and  said 
unto  him,  I   have   no  husband.     Jesus  saith  unto 

18  her.  Thou  saidst  well,  I  have  no  husband:  for  thou 
hast  had  five  husbands;  and  he  whom  thou  now 
hast  is  not  thy  husband:  this  hast  thou  said  truly. 

19  The  woman  saith  unto  him,  iSir,  I  perceive  that 


a  Luke  7  :  16 ;  24  :  19  ;  oh.  6 :  14  ;  7  :  40. 1  Or,  Lord. 


clear  exposure  of  her  sin,  and  a  distinct 
assertion  of  his  Messiahship.  Christ  there- 
fore gives  to  the  conversation  a  more  search- 
ing and  plainly  religious  turn. 

16.  Go,  call  thy  husband,  and  come 
hither.  It  is  evident,  from  what  follows, 
that  Jesus  knew  her  manner  of  life  from  her 
youth  up  ;  why  then  did  he  say  this?  Proba- 
bly to  awaken  in  her  a  sense  of  sin,  and  to 
give  her  an  opportunity  of  confessing  it. 
"  The  first  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  of 
him  who  here  spoke  in  the  fullness  of  that 
Spirit,  is,  io  convince  of  sin." — (Alford).  It  is 
unnecessary'  to  seek  for  any  further  reason 
for  the  Lord's  word. 

17.  I  have  no  husband.  Tiie  tone  of 
voice  with  which  these  words  were  uttered 
may  have  been  such  as  to  betray  a  desire  to 
expose  a  mistake  in  the  Saviour's  language, 
or  it  may  have  been  such  as  to  reveal  a  sense 
of  sin  and  shame.  The  latter  is  perhaps  more 
likely  to  have  been  its  character  than  the 
former.  At  any  rate,  what  she  said  was  true, 
though  it  was  not  the  whole  truth.  Thou 
hast  well  said,  I  have  no  husband.  By 
the  emphasis  wliich  Jesus  gave  to  the  word 
husband  (notice  the  change  in  the  order  of 
the  Greek  words:  " //?<s/;rmrf  I  have  not,  in- 
stead of,  /  have  not  a  husband),  he  prepared 
the  woman  for  his  statement  of  her  relation 
to  tlie  man  with  whom  she  was  living.  The 
whole  truth  must  be  uttered,  if  not  in  humble 
sorrow  by  the  woman  herself,  then  in  tender 
severity  by  the  Lord,  to  produce  repentance. 

18.  For  thou  hast  had  five  husbands. 
These  five  were  lawful  husbands,  and,  what- 
ever may  be  conjectured,  there  is  certainly 
nothing  in  the  words  of  Jesus  to  show  that 
she  had  been  unfaithful  to  any  of  them,  or 
had  been  divorced  from  any  of  them.  And 
he  whom  thou  now  hast  is  not  thy  hus- 
band. Godet  remarks  that  the  position  of 
the  pronoun  thy  (o-ou)  before  husband  (avijp) 
seems  to  imply  an  antithesis  not  expressed: 


"  not  thine,  hut  another^ s  husband."  Yet  he 
adds  very  justly,  as  we  think,  that  "it  is  not 
necessary  thus  to  press  the  sense  of  the  pro- 
noun." All  that  can  be  certainly  known,  is, 
that  she  had  been  married  five  times,  and 
was  now  living  in  open  vice.  In  that  saidst 
thou  truly.  Better,  This  hast  thou  said  truly. 
(Kev.  Ver. )  A  recognition  of  the  literal  truth 
of  her  words,  but  not  of  their  moral  suffi- 
ciency. Yet  no  such  woman  would  have 
been  likely  to  say  more  on  that  point  until 
she  had  been  brought  to  genuine  repentance 
before  God.  For  her  to  have  said:  "The 
man  with  whom  I  am  now  living  is  not  my 
husband,"  would  have  been  out  of  harmony 
with  the  preceding  conversation;  but  what 
she  does  say  is  extremely  natural.  The  pic- 
ture is  life-like,  and  therefore  credible.  Meyer 
is  also  justified  in  affirming  that  "the  knowl- 
edge of  Jesu.s,  in  respect  to  the  woman's  re- 
lations, is  immediate  and  siqiematural.  To 
assume  that  he  had  learned  the  events  of  her 
life  from  others,  is  contrary  to  the  view  of 
the  Evangelist;  and  there  is  no  psychological 
foundation  for  the  opinion  that  his  disciples 
introduced  into  the  conversation  what  they 
afterwards  learned,  when  once  we  are  unable 
to  confine  the  knowledge  of  Jesus  concerning 
the  moral  state  of  others  within  ordinary  hu- 
man limits.  Strangelj'  and  needlessly  does 
Lange  imagine  that  the  psychical  influence 
of  the  five  men  upon  the  woman  had  left 
on  her  countenance  traces  which  Jesus  per- 
ceived." 

19.  Sir,  I  perceive  that  thou  art  a 
prophet.  By  this  response  the  woman  ad- 
mits the  perfect  truth  of  his  statement,  inas- 
much as  she  virtually  traces  it  back  to  God 
as  its  author;  for  a  prophet  was  one  who 
spoke  for  Go<i,  delivering  to  men  truth 
received  from  him.  The  woman,  there- 
fore, perceiving  that  Jesus  had  superhuman 
knowledge,  ascribes  that  knowledge  to  God, 
and  calls  him  a  prophet. 


Ch.  IV.] 


JOHN. 


117 


20  Our  fathers  worshipped  in  "this  mountain;  and 
ye  saj',  that  in  'Jerusalem  is  the  place  where  men 
ought  to  worsliip. 

21  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Woman,  believe  me,  the  hour 
Cometh,  "when  ye  shall  neither  in  this  mouutaiu,  nor 
yet  at  Jerusalem,  worship  the  Father. 

22  Ye  worship  ''ye  know  not  what:  we  know  what 
we  worship;  for  "salvation  is  of  the  Jews. 


20  thou  art  a  prophet.  Our  fathers  worshipped  in  this 
mountain ;  and   ye  say,   that   in   .lerusalem   is   the 

21  pl.ace  where  men  ought  to  worship.  Jesus  saith 
unto  her.  Woman,  believe  me,  tlie  hour  coiueth, 
when  ueither  in  this  mountain,  nor  in  Jerusalem, 

22  shall  ye  worship  the  Father.  Ve  worship  that 
which  ye  know  not:   we  worship  that  which  we 


20.  Our  fathers  worshipped  in  this 
mountain.  Subtle  and  often  inexplicuble 
are  the  movements  of  the  human  spirit.  But 
it  is  not  surprising  that  the  woman  should 
wish  to  introduce  a  topic  less  personal  and 
painful,  for  she  was  not  so  hardened  as  to 
glory  in  her  shame.  Nor  is  it  surprising 
that  she  should  select  a  religious  topic,  for 
her  heart  was  yet  open  to  religious  influences, 
and  she  felt  herself  to  be  in  conversation  with 
one  who  was  a  true  prophet.  Moreover,  it 
was  extremely  natural  for  her  to  refer  to  the 
controversy  between  her  own  people  and  the 
Jews  concerning  the  holiest  place  for  wor- 
ship, for  Jacob's  Well  was  at  the  foot  of 
Gerizim,  and  her  eyes  were  probably  often 
directed  to  this  mountain.  It  may  be  also 
that  a  certain  indescribable  candor,  purity, 
and  gracit)usness  in  the  Saviour's  counte- 
nance and  tones  of  voice  made  her  desire  his 
opinion  on  the  question  so  long  debated  be- 
tween the  two  peoples.  On  the  whole,  it  is 
difficult  to  imagine  anj'thing  more  natural 
in  conversation  than  the  introduction  of  pre- 
cisely this  topic,  at  this  point,  by  the  Samari- 
tan woman.  By  our  fathers  she  probably 
meant,  not  Jacob  and  his  sons,  but  the  an- 
cestors of  the  Samaritans  of  her  own  day. 
Though  the  temple  built  by  Sanballat  on 
Gerizim,  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  (Josephus, 
"Ant.,"  XI.  8,  2-4),  had  been  destroyed,  two 
hundred  years  after,  by  John  Hyrcanus  (Jo- 
sephus "Ant.,"  XIII.  9,  1),  the  Samaritans 
still  resorted  to  the  place  where  it  stood  for 
prayer  and  sacrifice.  The  few  who  still  live 
ill  Nablous  turn  their  faces  to  this  mount  in 
praj-er,  and  kill  the  passover  on  it  once  a 
year.  And  ye  say,  that  in  Jerusalem  is 
the  place  \vhere  men  ought  to  Avorship. 
The  question  which  seems  to  have  been  in 
the  woman's  mind  is  rather  suggested  than 
proposed.  The  answer,  however,  came  as 
promptly  as  if  she  had  solicited  it  by  a  for- 
mal question. 
21.  Woman,    believe   me,   the   (or,    an) 


hour  Cometh,  when  ye  shall  neither  in 
this  mountain,  nor  yet  at  Jerusalem, 
worship  the  Father.  Notice  the  introduc- 
tory words,  calling  attention  to  that  which 
was  to  follow.  They  may  may  be  compared 
to  the  "verily,  verily,"  with  which,  accord- 
ing to  this  Evangelist,  Jesus  sometimes  called 
upon  his  hearers  to  believe  an  important 
truth.  Observe,  also,  that  he  lifts  the  wo- 
man's thoughts  above  the  controversy  in 
respect  to  Moriah  and  Gerizim,  by  remind- 
ing her,  with  the  authority  of  a  prophet,  that 
a  time  was  at  hand  when  neither  of  these 
would  have  any  claim  to  exclusive,  or  even 
special  consideration,  as  a  place  of  worship. 
If  the  pronoun  ye  refers  particularly  to  the 
Samaritans,  as  the  same  pronoun  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse  refers  to  the  Jews,  the  words  of 
Christ  predict  the  conversion  of  the  Samari- 
tans— a  conversion  which  would  lead  them  to 
abandon  their  worship  on  Gerizim,  without 
leading  them  to  resort  to  Jerusalem.  "  The 
divine  order  of  the  temple  worship  is  peda- 
gogical. Christ  is  its  object  and  end,  its 
fulfilling;  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  resto- 
ration of  the  glory  of  Jerusalem  is  a  Chiliastic 
dream." — (Meyer).  By  the  word  Father, 
says  Grotius,  "he  tacitly  hints  the  sweetness 
of  the  new  covenant.  ( Tacita  novi  fcederis 
suavitatem  inmiit).'' 

22.  Ye  worship  ye  know  not  Avhat. 
(Better,  Ve  worship  that  ivhich  ye  know 
not. — Rev.  Ver.)  This  language  is  meant  to 
affirm  not  absolute,  but  comparative  ignor- 
ance on  the  part  of  the  Samaritans  as  to  the 
object  of  their  worship.  They  accepted  the 
Pentateuch,  but  rejected  all  the  rest  of  tbe 
Old  Testament.  Hence  they  knew  much  less 
in  respect  to  Jebovah  and  his  purpose  of 
mercy,  than  had  been  revealed  to  the  devout 
Israelites.  By  rejecting  a  large  part  of  the 
truth  which  God  had  made  known  by  sacred 
history  and  holy  song  and  manifold  predic- 
tion, they  had  put  themselves  in  the  condi- 
tion of  those  who  worship  an  unknown  God. 


118 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IV. 


23  But  the  hour  conieth,  and  now  is,  when  the  true 
worshippers  shall  worship  the  Father  in  "spirit  'aud 
in  truth  ;  for  the  Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  him. 

24  <:God  is  a  Spirit:  and  they  that  worship  him 
must  worship  hint  iu  spirit  and  in  truth. 


23  know:  for  salvation  is  from  the  Jews.  But  the 
hour  comelh,  and  now  is,  when  the  true  worshippers 
shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  iu  truth: 
1  lor  such  doth  the  Father  seek  to  be  his  worship- 

24  pers.    •  God  is  a  spirit :  and  they  that  worship  him 


a  Pliil.  3:3 6  ch.  1 :  17 c  2  Cor.  3:  17. 1  Or,  for  such  the  Father  also  seeketh 2  Or,  God  is  spirit. 


— We  know  Avhat  (or,  that  ivhich)  we  wor- 
ship. Jesus  was  addressed  by  the  woman  as 
a  Jew,  and  in  accommodation  to  her  use  of 
language,  he  associates  himself  with  the 
Jews,  and  saj-s :  "  We  know  that  which  we 
worship."  Hence  it  is  comparative,  rather 
than  absolute  knowledge,  which  Christ  here 
claims.  Speaking  not  for  himself,  but  for 
the  Jews  as  a  people,  he  could  only  mean  to 
say.  We  have  a  knowledge  of  God  which  is 
worthy  to  be  called  knowledge,  when  con- 
trasted with  the  light  possessed  by  the  Sa- 
maritans. Farther  than  this  his  words  do 
not  go. — For  sahation  is  of  {or,  from)  the 
Jews.  It  was  God's  plan  to  have  the  salva-  j 
tion  which  he  had  provided  for  mankind 
come  to  them  from  the  Jews.  Not  only  were 
his  clearest  revelations  made  first  to  the  cho- 
sen people,  but  the  Messiah  liimself  was  to  be 
of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh. 
And  if  the  Messiah  was  to  be  from  the  Jews, 
God  would  not  leave  them  without  a  knowl- 
edge of  himself. 

23.  But  the  (or,  an)  hour  cometh,  and 
noAV  is.  In  other  words,  the  period  referred 
to  is  mainly  future,  yet  it  is  already  begun. 
When  the  true  Avorshippers — to  wit,  those 
whose  worship,  being  at  once  sincere  and 
intelligent,  realizes  the  proper  idea  of  wor- 
ship—shall Avorship  the  Father  in  spirit 
and  in  truth.  The  preposition  in  before 
truth,  should  be  omitted.  The  statement  is 
both  a  prediction  and  a  description  of  true 
worship.  For,  to  worship  the  Father  in 
spirit,  is  to  worship  him  in  the  innermost 
soul,  to  pay  unto  him  the  homage  of  reverent 
thought  and  feeling,  of  filial  trust  and  love. 
And  this  spiritual  worship  is  better  than  any 
formal  service,  depending  on  place  and 
ritual ;  for  it  is  inspired  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
dwelling  in  a  human  spirit,  and  sanctifying 
its  service.  Not  a  worship  in  flesh,  sensuous, 
ritual,  confined  to  particular  places,  seasons, 
forms,  but  a  worship  in  spirit,  ofl["ered  wher- 
ever there  is  a  human  soul  quickened  by  the 
Spirit  of  the  Most  High,  is  henceforth  to 
prevail  among  men.     This  rational  worship 


will  not  indeed  reject  outward  rites,  but  it  will 
use  them  only  as  helps  and  expressions  of 
spiritual  service  (Rom.  i:  s;  12:  i).  To  worship 
the  Father  in  truth,  is  to  worship  him 
within  the  sphere  of  truth,  or  in  fellowship 
and  conformity  with  truth.  It  is  to  render 
him  the  honor  and  service  which  his  own 
nature,  or  the  truth  which  reveals  that  nature, 
prescrfbes.  "Otherwise,"  as  Meyer  says, 
"the  worship  belongs  in  the  sphere  of  con- 
scious or  unconscious  falsehood."  The  Sa- 
maritans were  to  welcome  the  full  and  final 
revelation  of  God  in  the  person  of  his  Son, 
and  to  serve  him  in  the  light  of  that  revela- 
tion. Superstition,  however  sincere  and 
devout,  is  not  acceptable  worship.  For  the 
Father  seeketh  such  to  Avorship  him. 
The  Kevised  Version  is  preferable :  For  such 
doth  the  Father  seek  to  be  his  worshippers. 
Not  only  are  the  genuine  worshipers  of  God 
about  to  render  him  intelligent  homage  in 
the  sanctuary  of  their  spirit,  without  feeling 
it  necessary  to  appear  in  Jerusalem  or  in 
Gerizim ;  but  the  Father  also  is  even  now 
seeking  to  have  those  who  worship  him  be 
such  as  do  this.  This  more  spiritual  economy 
springs  from  the  heart,  plan,  and  action  of 
Jehovah  himself,  who  will  be  a  Father  to  all 
who  thus  honor  him. 

24.  God  is  a  Spirit  (or,  God  is  spirit), 
i.  e.,  in  essence;  and  therefore  confined  to  no 
mountain-tops,  inclosed  by  no  temple-walls. 
Immaterial,  imperceptible  to  sense,  he  is 
everywhere  in  the  fullness  of  his  being;  and 
that  being  is  personal,  knowing,  feeling,  and 
willing,  with  a  knowledge  that  is  infinite, 
a  love  that  is  perfect,  and  a  power  that 
is  boundless.  Hence  the  Psalmist  cries: 
"Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit,  or 
whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence?  If 
I  ascend  into  heaven,  thou  art  there;  if  I 
make  my  bed  in  hell  (or,  make  Sheol  my  bed), 
behold  thou  art  there.  If  I  take  the  wings  of 
the  morning  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  sea,  even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead 
me,  and  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me" 
(ps.  139:7-12).     The  translation,    God  is  spirit, 


Ch.  IV.] 


JOHN. 


119 


25  The  woman  saith  unto  him,  I  know  that  Messias 
Cometh,  which  is  called  Christ:  when  he  is  come,  "he 
will  tell  us  all  things. 

26  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  '  I  that  speak  unto  thee  am 
he. 

27  And  upon  this  came  his  disciples,  and  marvelled 
that  he  talked  with  the  woman:  yet  no  man  said. 
What  seekest  thou?  or,  Why  talkest  thou  with  her? 


25  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  truth.  The  woman 
saith  unto  him,  I  know  that  Me.ssiah  Cometh  (who 
is  called  <Jhrist) :  when  he  is  come,  he  will  declare 

26  unto  us  all  things.  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  I  that 
speak  unto  thee  am  he. 

27  And  upon  this  came  his  disciples;  and  they  mar- 
velled that  he  was  speaking  with  a  woman;  yet  no 
man  said,  What  seekest  thou  ?  or.  Why  speakest 


a  ver.  M:  39 b  Matt.  26:  6;{.  64;  Mark  U:  61,  62;  ch.  9  :  37. 


appears  to  be  the  only  correct  one;  for  there 
is  no  more  reason  for  inserting  the  indefinite 
article  before  the  word  spirit,  in  this  phice, 
than  there  is  for  inserting  it  before  the  word 
"light,"  in  the  sentence,  "God  is  light" 
(ijohni:5).  And  they  that  worship  him 
must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 
Only  such  worship  corresponds  with  his  na- 
ture. As  he  is  present,  though  unseen,  in 
every  place,  and  even  in  the  innermost  spirit 
of  man,  nothing  save  the  filial  homage  of  that 
spirit,  illumined  by  truth,  can  be  acceptable 
worship  in  his  sight.  Two  other  interpreta- 
tions of  the  expression,  "in  spirit  and  truth," 
ought  perhaps  to  be  mentioned.  According 
to  one  of  them,  the  word  "spirit"  here  means 
God's  Spirit,  as  gracious  influence,  which,  in 
union  with  his  truth,  is  represented  as  the 
atmosphere  or  element  of  all  true  worship. 
Worship  that  lives  and  moves,  and  has  its 
being  in  the  grace  and  truth  of  God,  is  the 
worship  which  he  requires.  It  may,  how- 
ever, be  questioned  whether  this  interpreta- 
tion of  the  word  "spirit"  is  not  imported 
into  the  text  rather  than  suggested  by  it, 
while  the  doctrine  which  it  finds  is  really 
implied  in  the  view  given  above.  Accord- 
ing to  the  other  interpretation,  the  word 
"spirit"  is  here  used  as  the  opposite  of 
"form,"  and  the  word  "truth"  as  the  op- 
posite of  "pretense" — Jesus  teaching  merely 
that  worship  must  be  hereafter  informal  and 
sincere.     This  is  too  euperficial. 

25.  I  know  that  Messias  cometh,  which 
is  called  Christ.  Although  the  Samaritans 
did  not  receive  the  later  boolts  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  having  divine  authority,  they 
did  expect  a  Messiah,  and  probably  connected 
the  language  of  Deut.  18  :  18,  with  him.  The 
woman  uses  Messiah  as  a  proper  name,  with- 
out the  article,  doubtless  because  it  was  a 
designation  current  in  Samaria,  as  well  as  in 
Judea,  and  because  she  was  conversing  with 
a  Jew.  The  explanation,  which  is  called 
Christ,  may  be  ascribed  either  to  the  Evan- 
gelist or  to  the  woman.     The  latter  appears 


to  have  employed  the  Greek  name  in  speak- 
ing to  the  men  of  Sychar  (ver.  2»).  When 
he  is  come,  he  will  tell  us  (or,  announce  to 
us)  all  things.  These  words  may  have  been 
due  to  a  feeling  that  she  did  not  understand 
the  wonderful  language  of  Jesus,  and  must 
therefore  wait  for  instruction,  which  could 
only  be  given  by  the  Christ;  or  they  may 
have  been  due  to  a  suspicion  that  Christ  was 
perhaps  now  conversing  with  her.  Trench 
sees  in  these  words  of  the  woman  a  cry  of 
helplessness,  connected  with  a  timid  presenti- 
ment, such  as  she  hardly  dares  own,  much 
less  ventures  to  utter:  "Thou  perhaps  art  he 
whom  we  look  for." — (Schaff.)  The  latter 
account  of  her  language  is  probably  correct; 
though  it  is  also  reasonable  to  presume  that 
she  was  conscious  of  something  in  his  words 
that  she  did  not  fully  comprehend. 

26.  I  that  speak  unto  thee  am  he.  (Or, 
/  that  talk  to  thee;  6  AoAwk,  of  familiar  con- 
versation). Wh}'  did  Jesus,  speaking  with 
this  woman,  declare  himself  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah, while  he  avoided  making  this  declara- 
tion among  the  Jews?  Several  reasons  may 
be  suggested,  e.  g.,  (1)  he  may  have  discerned 
in  the  woman's  heart  a  desire  to  know  the 
truth  ;  (2)  he  doubtless  foresaw  that  he  should 
remain  but  a  short  time  in  the  place;  and  (3) 
he  knew  that  an  avowal  of  his  Messiahship 
in  that  place  would  lead  to  no  political  ex- 
citement. "The  Jews  looked  upon  the  Mes- 
siah as  the  king  of  Israel,  and  expected  from 
him,  first  of  all,  political  changes  (comp.  John 
6:  15);  while  the  Samaritans,  deriving  their 
Messianic  expectations  chiefly  from  Deut.  18: 
15-19,  regarded  him  simply  as  a  prophet  or 
teacher,  and  were  less  liable  to  abuse  this 
revelation  for  disturbing  political  purposes." 
{Schaff.) 

27.  And  upon  this  came  his  disciples; 
?'.  e.,  as  Jesus  was  making  this  last  remark  to 
the  woman,  his  disciples  arrived  at  the  well, 
on  their  return  from  the  city.  And  they 
marvelled  (or,  were  wondering ;  eSau/oia^ov  is 
substituted    for    l^autiaaav  by   Lach.,    Tisch., 


120 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IV. 


28  The  woinan  then  left  her  waterpot,  and  went  her 
way  into  the  city,  and  saith  to  tlie  lueu, 

29  Come,  see  a  man,  "which  told  me  all  things  that 
ever  I  did :  is  not  this  the  Christ? 


28  thou  with  her?    So  the  woman  left  her  waterpot, 
and  went  away  into  the  city,  and  saith  to  the  men, 

29  Come,  see  a  man,  who  told  me  all  things  that  ever  I 


Treg.,  and  West,  and  Hort,  according  to  the 
best  evidence).  While  they  were  drawing 
near  to  the  well,  from  some  distance,  they  were 
observing  and  wondering  that  he  talked 
with  the  woman  (or,  rather,  was  talking 
with  a  woman.)  The  tense  of  these  verbs  is 
one  that  represents  action  in  progress,  action 
which  is  continuous  rather  than  momentary. 
The  wonder  of  the  disciples  was  not  occa- 
sioned by  anything  which  they  knew  of  this 
particular  woman,  but  by  the  simple  circum- 
stance that  he  was  talking  with  a  woman. 
They  now  saw,  perhaps  for  the  first  time, 
how  far  the  holy  independence  and  divine 
compassion  of  Jesus  lifted  him  above  the 
Oriental  and  Rabbinic  contempt  for  woman, 
in  which  they  had  been  educated.  (See 
Lightfoot,  Tholuck).  For  it  was  said  by 
some  of  the  Jewish  doctors  that  "a  man 
should  not  salute  a  woman  in  a  public  place, 
not  even  his  own  wife,"  and  that  it  was  "bet- 
ter that  the  words  of  the  law  should  be  burnt 
than  delivered  to  women."  Yet  no  man 
said  :  What  seekest  thou?  or,  Why  talk- 
est  thou  with  her?  They  did  not  presume 
to  call  in  question  his  action,  by  asking  what 
he  desired  from  the  woman,  or  why  he  con- 
versed with  her.  A  feeling  of  awe  restrained 
them.  Is  it  not  probable  that  the  face  of 
Jesus  was  lighted  up  at  the  moment  with 
divine  joy,  because  he  saw  that  a  lost  soul 
was  beginning  to  drink  of  the  water  of  life? 
They  wondered  in  silence.  Would  that  some 
others  were  as  reverent  as  they  !  Criticism  is 
often  foolish,  though  it  is  sharp;  and  si- 
lence is  often  wise,  because  it  is  humble  and 
trustful. 

28.  Then=Mer<;/ore— either  because  the 
arrival  of  the  disciples  interrupted  the  con- 
versation, or  because  the  final  declaration  of 
Jesus  made  so  deep  an  impression  upon  her 
mind:  the  latter  is  to  be  preferred —the 
woman  left  her  waterpot  —  forgetful,  it 
may  be,  of  the  object  for  which  ^he  had  come 
to  the  well,  or  else  purposing  to  return  at 
once,  after  reporting  to  others  what  she  had 
learned— and  went  her  way  (or,  away)  into 
the  city— which  was  a  mile  and  a  half  from 


the  well,  if  Sychar  was  not  nearer  than  the 
itiodern  Nablous.  AVe  assume,  however,  that 
it  was  much  nearer.  Yet  this  walk  would 
furnish  time  for  reflection  on  the  words  of 
Jesus,  and  for  resolving  what  she  would  say 
to  the  people.  And  saith  to  the  men : 
whom  she  met  as  she  entered  the  city  ;  for 
she  appears  to  have  told  her  wonderful  story 
to  the  people  whom  she  first  saw. 

29.  Come,  see  a  man  which  told  me 
all  things  that  ever  I  did.  An  invitation, 
and  a  reason  for  complying  with  it.  Nothing 
which  Jesus  said  made  a  deeper  impression 
on  the  woman  than  his  exact  account  of  her 
past  life.  It  seemed  to  her  as  if  he  had  told 
the  whole  sad  story  of  it,  though  his  words 
were  few;  and  she  was  so  moved,  that  no 
feeling  of  personal  shame  prevented  her 
from  appealing  to  this  proof  of  the  stranger's 
knowledge.  And  of  all  that  Jesus  had  said 
to  her,  this  was  probably  just  the  part  which 
was  most  likely  to  arrest  the  attention,  and 
secure  beforehand  the  confidence  of  the 
people.  It  was  something  which  they  could 
appreciate  without  difficult^',  and  which 
gave  evidence  of  prophetic,  if  not  of  Messi- 
anic power.  Is  not  this  the  Christ?  The 
Common  Version,  by  introducing  not,  sup- 
poses that  the  woman  intimated  that  she  re- 
garded an  aflirmative  answer  as  correct.  But 
the  form  of  her  question,  as  recorded  by  John : 
Can  this  be  the  Christ?  intimates  just  the 
opposite — that  she  wished  to  be  regarded  as 
inclining  to  a  negative  answer.  Thus  :  "This 
cannot  be  the  Christ,  I  suppose;  do  you 
think  he  can?  "  Is  there  not  in  this  form  of 
the  question  a  trait  of  originality  and  reality 
too  delicate  for  any  falsarius  of  the  second 
century?  The  woman,  according  to  the 
narrative,  believed  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ ; 
would  not  a  writer  of  fiction  have  suffered 
her  to  intimate  this  in  her  question  ?  But  in 
fact  she  did  not.  For  some  reason  she  saw  fit 
to  speak  as  if  she  were  in  doubt  herself,  and 
a  little  inclined  to  think  that  Jesus  could  not 
be  the  Christ,  though  she  was  anxious  to  have 
the  judgment  of  men  on  that  point;  and  so 
the  Evangelist  records  her  question  as  she 


C^H.    IV.J 


JOHN. 


121 


30  Then  they  went  out  of  the  city,  and  came  unto 
bim. 

31  In  the  mean  while  his  disciples  prayed  him,  say- 
ing, Master,  eat. 

32  But  he  said  uuto  them,  I  have  meat  to  eat  that  ye 
know  not  of. 

33  Therefore  said  the  disciples  one  to  another.  Hath 
any  man  brought  him  aught  to  eat  ? 

34  Jesus  saitli  unto  them,  "  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will 
of  him  that  sent  me,  and  to  finish  his  work. 

35  Say  not  ye,  There  are  yet  four  months,  and  then 
cometh  harvest  ?  behold,  I  say  unto  you,  Lift  up  your 
eyes,  and  look  on  the  fields;  ''for  they  are  white  al- 
ready to  harvest. 


30  did  :  can  this  be  the  Christ?    They  went  out  of  the 

31  city,  and  were  coming  to  him.     In  the  mean  while 

32  the  disciples  prayed  him,  saying.  Rabbi,  eat.  Hut 
he  said  unto  them,  I  have  meat  to  eat  that  ye  know 

33  not.    The  disciples  therefore  said  one  to  another, 

34  Hath  any  man  brought  him  (inr/hl  to  eat?  Jesus 
saith  unto  them.  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him 

35  that  sent  me,  and  to  accomplish  his  work.  Say  not 
ye,  There  are  yet  four  mouths,  and  then  cometb  the 
harvest  ?  behold,  1  say  unto  you.  Lift  up  your  eyes, 
and  look  on  the  fields,  that  they  are  '-  while  already 


oJob23:I'2;  ch.6;.'i8;  17:4;  19:30 5  Matt.  9  :  37  ;  Luke  10:2. ]  Or,  white  vnlo  harvest.     Already  he  lliul  leajieth.  etc. 


uttered  it.  "She  believes  more  than  she 
says;  but  she  does  not  venture  to  assume, 
even  as  probable,  so  great  news.  Nothing 
could  be  more  natural  than  this  little  trait." 
— ( Godet. ) 

30.  Then  they  went  out  of  the  city, 
and  came  (or,  wer'e  coming)  to  him.  The 
oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  editors  omit 
Then.  The  tense  of  the  last  verb,  v^ere 
coming  (^pxoito),  represents  action  in  prog- 
ress, and  thus  prepares  the  mind  of  the  reader 
for  a  narrative  of  wliat  took  place  at  the  well 
while  the  people  were  coming. 

31.  In  the  mean  while,  i.  c,  in  the  time 
which  passed  between  the  departure  of  the 
woman  for  the  city  and  the  arrival  of  the 
people  from  the  city,  his  (rather,  the)  dis- 
ciples prayed  (or,  asked)  him,  saying, 
JMaster,  eat.  They  had  left  him  weary 
and  faint,  and  t\\&y  naturally  imagined  that 
he  must  be  so  still.  How  great  then  must 
have  been  their  surprise  at  his  answer: 

32.  I  have  meat  {food)  to  eat  that  ye 
know  not  of.  As  Jesus  had  spoken  to  tlie 
woman  of  spiritual  refreshment  under  the 
figure  of  "living  water,"  so  now  he  testifies 
of  spiritual  nourishment  under  tlie  figure  of 
food.  Tlie  aptness  of  his  emblems  is  only 
rivaled  by  their  obviousness.  He  is  at  home 
in  the  realm  of  nature,  and  his  use  of  figura- 
tive speech  is  perfect.  Yet  his  words  are  not, 
in  this  case,  altogether  figurative.  For  soul 
and  body  are  mj'steriously  united,  and  the 
joyful  activity  of  the  former  is  often  a  literal 
refreshment  to  the  latter.  Spiritual  satisfac- 
tion seems  to  nullify  bodily  want.  Hunger 
ceases  when  the  soul  exults.  It  was  after 
fort3'  daj's  that  Christ  hungered  (Matt.  4:2). 
Observe  the  contra.st  between  the  pronouns 
1  and  ye  ;  for  the  fact  that  these  pronouns  are 
expressed  in  the  Greek  makes  them  in  some 
degree  emphatic.     Jesus   knew,   as  the   dis- 


ciples did  not,  the  refreshing  influence  of 
spiritual  service  on  the  whole  being,  espe- 
cially when  that  service  springs  from  holy 
love,  and  bears  fruit  to  the  glory  of  God 

33.  Therefore  said  (or,  were  saying)  the 
disciples  one  to  another.  The  Evangelist 
recollects  how  this  question  was  passing  from 
one  to  another:  Hath  any  man  brought 
him  aught  to  eat  ?  The  form  of  the  ques- 
tion (fi^  Tis)  anticipates  a  negative  answer; 
but  the  fact  that  it  passed  from  one  to  another 
shows  that  the  disciples  did  not  comprehend 
his  deep  and  spiritual  saying.  In  this  re- 
spect they  were  like  the  Samaritan  woman. 
Yet  how  frankly  the  Evangelist  records  their 
dullness,  even  as  if  he  were  not  one  of  them 
himself.  And  how  promptly  Jesus  proceeds 
to  express  his  meaning  in  words  that  the  dull- 
est must  understand. 

34.  My  meat  {food)  is  to  do  (or,  that  I 
may  do)  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  and 
to  finish  his  Avork.  Thus  Jesus  solemnly 
afiSrms  that  the  privilege  of  doing  the  will  of 
his  Father,  and  of  completing  at  last  his 
Father's  work  on  earth,  is  his  highest  satis- 
faction and  refreshment.  'To  carry  on  that 
work,  step  by  step,  according  to  the  Father's 
will,  and  to  have  in  prospect  its  completion 
on  the  cross,  is  my  food;  and  by  this  I  have 
been  nourished  and  quickened  while  you  were 
gone  to  the  city.'  The  original  expression 
here  translated,  to  do  .  .  .  and  to  finish  {'iva 
n-otu),  "emphasizes  the  end  and  not  the  pro- 
cess, not  the  doing  .  .  .  and  finishing,  but 
that  I  may  do  .  .  .  and  Jinish.  (Compare 
6:29;  15:  8;  17:  3;  1  John  8:  11 ;  5:3.)"  — 
(Westcott. )  "We  are  not  sure  of  this  distinc- 
tion. The  Greek  expression  seems  to  be  fairly 
represented  in  English  by  the  infinitive. 

35.  Say  not  ye.  There  are  yet  four 
months,  and  then  cometh  {the)  harvest? 
This  question  may  be  relied    ..pon  with  rea- 


122 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IV. 


36  "And  he  that  reapeth  receiveth  wages,  and  gath- |  36  unto  harvest.     He  that   reapeth   receiveth   wages, 
ereth  fruit  unto  life  eterual:  tliat  both  he  that  soweth  and  gathereth  fruit  unto  life  eternal ;  that  he  that 

and  he  that  reapeth  may  rejoice  together.  |        soweth  and  he  that  reapeth  may  rejoice  together. 


sonable  confidence  as  indicating  the  season 
of  the  year  when  Jesus  passed  through  Sa- 
maria, and  sat  by  Jacob's  Well.  It  was 
about  four  months  previous  to  the  beginning 
of  harvest.  And  as  harvest  began  about  the 
middle  of  Nisan  (April),  at  Easter,  and  lasted 
till  Pentecost,  by  counting  back  four  months, 
December  is  reached.  Seed-time  was  about 
the  first  of  November,  and  therefore  the  fields 
were  now,  it  is  probable,  green  with  the  spring- 
ing grain.  Says  Dr.  Hackett:  "Of  course 
there  is  some  doubt  whether,  in  speaking  of 
the  interval  between  sowing  and  reaping  as 
'four  months,'  he  employed  the  language 
of  a  proveb  merely,  or  meant  that  this  was 
the  actual  time  to  elapse  before  the  fields 
around  them  just  sown  wouldyield  a  harvest. 
Even  if  such  a  proverb  was  in  use  (which 
has  not  been  shown),  his  availing  himself 
of  it  would  be  more  significant  if  the  four 
months  of  the  proverb  happened  on  this  oc- 
casion to  coincide  with  the  season  of  the 
year."  (Smith's  "Diet,  of  the  Bible,"'  Am. 
Ed.,  p.  1,861.)  This  is  certainly  a  verj'  mod- 
erate estimate  of  the  probability  that  Christ's 
question  determines  the  season  of  the  year 
when  it  was  asked.  Four  points  may  be 
made  against  the  idea  that  this  is  a  proverb. 
(1)  That  no  starting  point  for  the  period  is 
given;    (2^  that  the  adverb  yet  is  inserted; 

(3)  that  the   pronoun   ye   is  emphatic;    and 

(4)  that  there  is  no  other  trace  of  the  ex- 
istence of  such  a  proverb.  Behold,  I  say 
unto  you,  Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look  on 
the  fields;  for  they  are  white  already 
to  harvest.  The  conjunction  translated  for 
should  here  be  rendered  that,  as  in  the  Rev. 
Ver.  The  people  from  the  citj',  it  may  be 
presumed,  were  now  visible  at  no  great  dis- 
tance, hastening  through  the  fields  towards 
the  well ;  and  by  turning  his  eye  upon  them, 
or  stretching  forth  his  hand  towards  them, 
Jesus  interpreted  his  words  to  his  disciples. 
More  precious  than  the  waving  harvests  of 
Mukhna  —  a  valley  or  plain  unsurpassed  in 
point  of  fertility  by  any  other  region  of  Pa- 
lestine (Hackett),  were  these  approaching  Sa- 
maritans, who  could  now  be  gathered  into 
the  garner  of  the  Lord.     These  were  to  be 


the  first-fruits  of  the  Gentiles,  brought  in  by 
the  labor  of  Christ  himself,  assisted,  it  may 
be,  in  some  way  by  the  presence  of  his  dis- 
ciples. For  the  Samaritans,  who  appear  to 
have  expected  the  Christ  as  a  teacher,  rather 
than  as  a  king,  received  the  truth  at  this 
time  with  great  readiness  of  mind.  The 
Pharisees,  with  more  light,  rejected  Jesus, 
the  Samaritans,  with  less  self-sutficiency,  wel- 
comed him.  "Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit  " 
It  seems  probable  that  the  word  already  be- 
longs to  the  next  verse,  rather  than  to  the 
clause  before  us.  This  change  is  required 
by  some  of  the  early  manuscripts,  and  is  ap- 
proved by  Westcott,  Schaff,  Tischendorf,  and 
others. 

36.  And  {already)  he  that  reapeth  receiv- 
eth wages,  and  srathereth  fruit  unto  life 
eternal.  This  language  announces  both  a 
reward  and  a  result  of  labor  for  the  salvation 
of  men.  Several  interpreters,  however,  sup- 
pose that  the  reward  is  found  in  the  result, 
"in  having  gathered  many  into  eternal  life." 
— (Alford).  But  it  is  better  to  regard  the 
two  as,  in  some  measure,  distinct;  and,  if 
both  may  be  thought  of  as  reward,  to  look 
upon  that  reward  as  twofold,  present  and 
future,  involved  in  the  very  nature  of  the 
service,  as  well  as  in  its  result.  The  language 
of  Jesus  also  implies  that  the  reaper,  if  not 
the  sower,  is  a  servant,  and,  therefore,  re- 
minds one  of  the  saying  recorded  bj'  Mat- 
thew: "The  harvest  truly  is  great,  but  the 
laborers  are  few ;  pray  ye  therefore  the  Lord 
of  the  harvest,  that  he  will  send  forth  labor- 
ers into  his  harvest"  (9:37, as).  (In  order) 
that  both  he  that  soweth  and  he  that 
reapeth  may  rejoice  together.  It  seems 
on  the  whole  probable  that  Jesus  means  by 
he  that  soweth,  himself,  or  himself  princi- 
pally. "He  that  soweth  the  good  seed  is  the 
Son  of  man"  (Man.  i3:37) ;  and  in  the  present 
instance,  the  gospel  comes  first  to  the  Sa- 
maritans from  the  lips  of  Jesus.  Afterwards, 
when  Philip  went  down  to  Samaria,  there 
was  a  gi'eat  ingathering;  and,  if  it  was  in 
Sychar,  it  may  be  presumed  that  the  sowing 
of  Jesus  at  this  time  prepared  the  way  for  the 
reaping  by  Philip  a  few  j-ears  later.     At  any 


Ch.  IV.] 


JOHN. 


123 


37  And  herein  ia  that  saying  true,  One  soweth,  and 
another  reapeth. 

38  I  sent  you  to  reap  that  whereon  ye  bestowed  no 
labour:  other  men  laboured,  and  ye  are  entered  into 
their  labours. 

39  And  many  of  the  Samaritans  of  that  city  believed 
on  him  "  for  the  saying  of  tlie  woman,  which  testified, 
He  told  me  all  that  ever  I  did. 


37  For   herein    is   the  saying  true,   One  soweth,   and 

38  another  reapeth.  1  sent  you  to  reap  that  whereon 
ye  have  not  laboured:  others  have  laboured,  and  ye 
are  entered  into  their  labour. 

39  And  from  that  city  many  of  the  Samaritans  be- 
lieved on  him  because  of  the  word  of  the  woman, 
who  testified.  He  told  me  all  things  that  ever  1  did. 


rate,  the  sower  and  the  reaper  will  rejoice  to- 
gether hereafter,  when  the  result  of  both 
sowing  and  reaping  is  fully  revealed.  The 
work  of  Jesus  resembled  that  of  a  sower 
much  more  than  it  did  that  of  a  reaper. 

37.  And  herein  is  that  saying  true  :  One 
soweth  and  another  reapeth.  As  to  the 
purpose  of  this  language,  nearly  all  interpret- 
ers are  agreed.  Christ  intends  to  aflBrm  that 
in  the  work  of  saving  men  through  the  gos- 
pel, the  idea  which  is  expressed  by  the  prov- 
erb :  One  soweth  and  another  reapeth,  is 
fully  realized.  But  there  is  some  difference  of 
judgment  in  respect  to  the  proper  rendering 
and  construction  of  the  first  clause.  It  might 
be  rendered  very  literally :  For  herein  the 
saying  is  the  true  [one]  :  One  is  he  that  sow- 
eth, and  another  he  that  reapeth.  This  trans- 
lation follows  the  order  of  the  Greek  words, 
and  accords  with  the  interpretation  of  Liicke 
and  Meyer.  "In  this  case  (in  this  our  com- 
mon work)  the  proverb :  0?ie  soweth  and 
another  reapeth,  finds  its  full  application."  — 
(Liicke).  The  Bible  Union  translates  :  "For 
herein  is  the  true  saying,"  etc.  ;  and  Alford  : 
"For  herein  is  [fulfilled]  that  true  saying," 
etc.  I  prefer  the  translation  first  given, 
and  the  interpretation  defended  by  Liicke, 
IVIej^er,  and  others.  The  article  before  true 
is  doubtful. 

38.  I  sent  you  to  reap  that  whereon  ye 
bestowed  no  labor  (or,  whereon  ye  have  not 
labored)  ;  other  men  {have)  labored,  and 
ye  are  (or,  have)  entered  into  their  labors. 
These  words  were  intended  to  encourage  the 
disciples  by  a  view  of  the  work  to  which  they 
had  been  virtually  appointed.  The  possi- 
bility, the  success,  and  the  joy  of  that  work 
had  been  secured  by  wearisome  toil  on  the 
part  of  some  who  had  gone  before.  But  two 
difficulties  present  themselves  to  an  inter- 
preter, (a)  in  the  use  of  past  tenses,  while,  so 
far  at  least  as  the  disciples  were  concerned,  the 
reference  must  be  mainly  to  the  future;  and, 
(b)  in  the  use  of  the  plural  others  (aAAot), 
while  the  reference  must  be  chiefly  to  Christ 


himself  In  respect  to  the  former,  Alford 
remarks  that  "here,  as  often,  our  Lord 
speaks  of  the  office  and  its  work  as  accom- 
plished, which  is  but  beginning";  and 
Meyer,  that  "the  sending  of  the  disciples 
and  the  fulfillment  of  their  mission,  were 
essentially  involved  in  their  being  received 
into  the  apostleship."  It  may  as  well  be 
said,  that,  to  the  eye  of  Jesus,  the  future 
seems  to  have  been  already  present,  and  the 
work  of  his  disciples  already  past.  Not 
only  could  he  foresee  the  oak  in  the  acorn, 
the  fruit  in  the  germ,  the  future  in  the  pres- 
ent, but,  if  we  may  judge  by  his  own  words, 
his  point  of  observation  was  divine  as  well  as 
human,  and  he  could  survey  that  which  was 
to  be,  as  if  it  had  already  been.  In  respect 
to  the  latter  difficulty,  it  is  not  unreasonable 
to  suppose  that  Jesus  used  the  word  others 
(aWoi),  because  he  wished  to  associate  with 
himself  John  the  Baptist;  for  he  was  address- 
ing a  band  of  men  who  had  been,  mo.st  of 
them  at  least,  recently  disciples  of  John. 
Meyer  supposes  that  it  is  a  plural  of  category, 
and  Alford,  that  it  is  purely  rhetorical,  to 
correspond  with  the  plural  ye.  Godet  imag- 
ines that  Christ  has  in  mind  the  Samaritan 
woman  also,  who  had  gone  into  the  city  to 
speak  of  him.  "In  respect  to  the  whole 
extent  of  the  apostolic  work,  he  thinks,  no 
doubt,  of  his  precursor  and  of  himself  But, 
with  reference  to  the  case  before  him,  he 
thinks  assuredly  of  himself  and  of  his  agile 
messenger.  For  he  is  pleased  to  recognize 
the  co-operation  of  the  feeblest  agent  who 
consents  to  be  associated  with  him"  (3:ii). 
It  is,  however,  exceedingly  improbable  that 
he  thought  of  the  Samaritan  woman  in  this 
expression.  Her  relation  to  the  work  was 
wholly  different  from  that  of  Christ,  of  John 
the  Baptist,  or  of  the  apostles.  The  aorist 
tense  of  the  first  verb  "sent,"  is  better  suj)- 
ported  than  the  perfect. 

39-42.    Many  Samaritans  Believe  in 
Jesus. 

39.    From  this  verse  it  appears  that  many 


124 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IV. 


40  So  when  the  Samaritans  were  come  unto  him, 
they  besought  him  that  he  would  tarry  with  them: 
auJ  he  abode  there  two  days. 

41  And  many  more  believed  because  of  his  own 
word  ; 

42  And  said  unto  the  woman,  Now  we  believe,  not 
because  of  thy  saying:  for  "we  have  heard  him  our- 
selves, and  know  that  this  is  indeed  the  Christ,  the 
Saviour  ol  the  world. 

43  Now  after  two  days  he  departed  thence,  and  went 
into  Galilee. 

44  For  'Jesus  himself  testified,  that  a  prophet  hath 
no  honour  in  his  own  country. 


40  So  when  the  Samaritans  came  unto  hiiu,  they  be- 
sought him  to  abide  with  them:  and  he  abode  there 

41  two  days.     And  luauy  more  believed  because  of  his 

42  word:  and  they  said  to  the  woman,  Now  we  be- 
lieve, not  because  of  thy  spealciug:  for  we  have 
heard  for  ourselves,  and  know  that  this  is  indeed 
the  Saviour  of  the  world. 

43  And    after    the    two  days,  he  went   forth   from 

44  thence  into  Galilee.  For  Jesus  himself  testified, 
that  a  prophet  hath  no  honour  in  his  own  couutiy. 


ach.  17:  8;  I  John  4.  14 h  Matt.  13  :  57  ;  Mark  6:4:  Luke  4  :  24. 


of  the  people  belonging  to  Sycliar  gave  full 
credit  to  the  word  of  the  woman,  and,  there- 
fore, without  asking  for  any  miracle,  be- 
lieved in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  "Whenever 
Jesus  found  his  word  sufficient,  he  omitted, 
on  principle;  the  working  of  miracles."  — 
(Meyer.  Y 

40.  A  wise  request  and  a  gracious  answer. 
This  simple  incident  may  be  studied  as  an 
illustration  of  the  nature  of  true  prayer,  and 
of  the  readiness  of  God  to  bestow  on  his 
people  the  greatest  conceivable  good — his 
own  presence;  his  own  presence,  not  merely 
for  two  days,  but  for  all  time  and  all  eter- 
nity ! 

41.  The  sowing  of  Jesus  was  sometimes 
reaping.  In  the  present  instance,  more  were 
led  to  faith  in  him  by  his  own  word,  than  by 
that  of  the  woman.  "What  holy  and  quick- 
ening truths  fell  from  his  lips  during  these 
two  December  daj"s  in  the  heart  of  Samaria! 
Plainly  enough,  the  Evangelist  could  not  put 
on  record  all  that  he  said  (21:2dj. 

42.  And  said  (or,  were  saying)  unto  the 
woman.  The  remark  was  often  made  dur- 
ing those  days  of  profound  excitement  and 
joy;  but  not,  we  may  be  certain,  with  any 
feeling  of  contempt  for  the  woman's  testi- 
mony. She  had  been  too  highly  honored 
by  Jesus  for  them  to  despise  her  at  that  time. 
Some,  indeed,  suppose  that  the  word  trans- 
lated saying  (AoAii),  is  here  used  by  the  Sa- 
maritans in  its  classical  sense  of  "  mere  talk  " 
— i.  c,  as  compared  with  the  powerful  and 
convincing  discourse  of  Jesus;  but  against 
this  it  may  be  objected,  (1)  that  the  word  has 


'  On  the  position  of  the  word  "Samaritans,"  in  the 
original,  see  the  remark  of  Buttmann  ("Grammar  of 
the  N.  T.  Greek,"  p.  387) :  "  In  Greek  as  in  Latin,  there 
is  a  predilection  for  separating  the  PartilUe  Genitive 
in  this  way  from  its  governing  word,  sometimes  to 
such  an  extent,  that  the  two  words  belonging  together 
occupy  the  first  place  in  the  clause  and  the  last." 


this  meaning  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment; (21  that  Christ  applies  it  to  his  own 
teaching:  "Why  do  ye  not  understand  my 
speech?"  (John  8: 43);  (3)  that  the  Corresponding 
verb  is  nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  used 
of  mere  talk;  (4)  that  the  Samaritans  in  this 
very  sentence  admit  that  her  words  had  pro- 
duced in  them. a  belief  in  Jesus:  "Now  we 
believe,  not  because  of  thy  saj'ing"  ;  and  (5) 
that  the  circumstances  do  not  render  a  con- 
temptuous reference  to  her  words  probable. 
It  is  noteworthy  that  thej-  use  very  strong 
language  in  expressing  their  present  faith, 
viz.,  Ave  know,  (oihaixtv)  and  that  they  recog- 
nize in  Jesus  the  Saviour  of  the  Avorld. 
Having  accepted  him  as  the  Messiali,  they 
were  prepared  to  learn  that  his  mission  was 
to  the  world,  rather  than  to  the  chosen 
people  only.  In  this  respect  they  were  more 
docile  than  the  Jews,  and,  though  Jesus  tar- 
ried with  them  but  two  days,  he  was  able  to 
convince  them  that  he  was  the  Son  of  man 
appearing  in  the  world  for  the  salvation  of 
mankind.  Nothing  is  more  remarkable  in 
the  ministry  of  the  Lord  than  his  wi.sdom  in 
adapting  his  instruction  to  the  spiritual  state 
of  those  whom  he  taught. 

43-45.    Departuke    into    Galilee  — 
Keason  for  It— Reception   There. 

43.  After  (the)  two  days— namely,  the  two 
days  mentioned  in  verse  40.  Galilee — i.  e., 
the  province  of  that  name.  This  is  the  most 
obvious  meaning  of  the  word,  and,  if  it  is 
used  in  any  restricted  sense,  the  fact  must 
be  learned  from  the  context. 

44.  Taken  in  its  onlj'  natural  sense,  this 
verse  assigns  a  reason  for  the  Lord's  going 
into  Galilee  at  this  time,  namely,  that  he 
knew  (for  he  bore  witness  to  the  fact)  that  a 
prophet  is  not  likely  to  be  honored  in  his  own 
country.  "Familiarity  breeds  contempt." 
But  why  was  this  a  reason  for  his  going  into 
Galilee?    A^arious  answers  have  been  given 


Ch.  IV.] 


JOHN. 


125 


45  Then  when  he  was  come  into  Galilee,  the  Galile- 
ans received  him,  "having  seen  all  the  things  that  he 
did  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feast :  '  for  they  also  went  unto 
the  feast. 

46  So  Jesus  came  again  into  Cana  of  Galilee,  ''where 
he  made  the  water  wine.  And  there  was  a  certain  no- 
bleman, whose  son  was  sick  at  Capernaum. 


45  So  when  he  came  into  Galilee,  the  Galiljeans  re- 
ceived him,  having  seen  all  the  things  that  he  did 
in  Jerusalem  at  the  feast:  for  they  also  went  unto 
the  feast. 

46  He  came  therefore  again  unto  Cana  of  Galilee, 
where  he  made  the  water  wine.  And  tliere  was  a 
certain  i  nobleman,  whose  sou  was  sick  at  Cai)er- 


3:2 b  Deut.  16  :  16 c  ch.  '2  :  1,  11. 1  Or,  king'a  off 


to  this  question.  Thus  (1)  Alford  says  that  he 
wished  to  avoid  fame  at  this  time.  "What  he 
desired  was  quiet  and  comparative  seclusion ; 
and  these  he  would  be  most  lii<ely  to  find  in 
the  region  where  he  had  been  known  from 
childhood.  But  this  interpretation  hardly 
accords  with  the  result,  or  with  the  so — or, 
therefore  (ovv)  — i  n  verse  46.  (2)  Biickner 
thinks  that  he  anticipated  special  opposition 
in  Galilee,  and  therefore  resolved  to  meet  it 
promptly.  But  this  view  does  not  agree  with 
the  sequel.  From  this  time  onward  his  re- 
ception in  Galilee  was  more  favorable  than 
his  reception  in  Judea.  (3)  Wiesler  supposes 
that  by  his  own  country  Judea  was  meant 
as  the  place  of  his  birth.  But  in  the  sense  of 
the  proverb,  Galilee,  rather  than  Judea,  was 
his  own  country.  For  he  was  brought  up 
in  Nazareth,  and  was  considered  a  Nazarene. 
Besides,  he  had  on  the  whole  been  well  re- 
ceived in  Judea.  (4)  Hengstenberg  believes 
that  Nazareth  is  meant  by  his  own  country 
(comp.  Luke  4  :  24),  while  Lange  believes 
that  Lower  Galilee,  including  Nazareth,  must 
be  meant.  But  the  word  Galilee  seems  to  be 
used  in  distinction  from  Judea  and  Samaria, 
and  not  in  distinction  from  the  lower  part  of 
the  province.  (5)  Meyer  thinks  that  Galilee 
is  referred  to  as  his  own  country,  and  that 
the  reason  for  his  return  is  rather  suggested 
than  expressed  by  this  designation.  "If  a 
prophet,  as  Jesus  himself  testified,  is  without 
honor  in  his  own  country,  he  must  earn  it  in 
another.  And  this  Jesus  had  done  in  Jeru- 
salem. He  now  brought  with  him  the  honor 
of  a  prophet  from  a  distance.  Hence  too 
lie  found  acceptance  with  the  Galileans,  be- 
cause they  had  seen  his  miracles  in  Jerusa- 
lem (3:23)."  This  last  view  may  be  accepted 
as  the  best  j'et  proposed.  But  the  connection 
of  thought  in  the  passage  is  obscure;  though 
the  obscurity  is  not  such  as  to  shake  in  any 
degree  our  confidence  in  the  narrative. 

45.  Acting  as  the  general  law  of  society 
recognized  by  his  testimony  required,  Jesus 
went  into  Galilee,  and  was  received  favorably 


by  the  Galileans,  because  they  had  seen  all 
things  that  he  did  in  the  feast  at  Jeru.salem. 
Observe  that  it  was  what  he  did,  and  not 
what  he  said — his  mighty  works,  and  r.ot  his 
gracious  words — which  won  their  respect. 
How  unlike  the  Samaritans!  And  it  wis 
also  what  he  did  in  Jerusalem,  rather  than 
what  he  did  in  Cana  or  in  Capernaum,  which 
made  him  now  welcome  as  a  prophet  in  his 
own  country.  From  the  circumstance  that 
the  Evangelist  refers  to  the  feast  simply, 
it  is  unsafe  to  infer  with  Westcott  that  no 
"great  feast"  had  occurred  since  the  one  here 
referred  to.  John  probably  calls  it  simply 
the  feast  because  it  is  the  only  one  that  he 
had  yet  mentioned,  the  one  at  Vv^hich  Jesus 
had  wrought  the  signs  here  meant  by  the 
things  that  he  did.  At  this  point  may  be 
placed  the  work  of  Jesus  described  in  general 
terms  in  Matt.  4:  17;  Mark  1:  14,  15;  and 
Luke  4 :  14,  15. 

46-54.  Healing  of  the  Nobleman's 
Son. 

46.  For  some  reason  Jesus  appears  to  have 
passed  by  Nazareth,  going  at  once  to  Cana 
in  Galilee.  He  may  have  done  this,  because 
he  wished  to  abide  for  a  few  days  with  Na- 
thanael,  one  of  his  disciples  (21:2),  or  with  the 
family  in  which  the  marriage,  previously 
described,  took  place.  Or  he  may  have  re- 
paired to  this  town,  because  he  knew  that  the 
inhabitants  of  it  had  been  more  deeply  im- 
pressed than  others  by  his  miracles  in  Jeru- 
salem— with  which  some  of  them  may  have 
associated  the  wonderful  supply  of  wine  at 
the  wedding  a  short  time  before.  At  all 
events,  whether  for  one  reason  or  for  many, 
the  Saviour  returned  to  Cana,  the  scene  of  his 
first  miracle.  Jesus  came.  The  word  Jesus 
does  not  belong  to  the  text,  according  to  L.  T. 
Tisch.,  W.  and  H.  It  should  read,  he  came. 
And  there  was  at  (or,  in)  Capernaum. 
Capernaum  is  connected  by  the  preposition 
in,  with  the  principal  verb  was,  though  it 
stands  in  the  Greek  original  at  the  close  of 
the  verse.   A  certain  nobleman.    The  word 


126 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IV. 


47  When  he  heard  that  Jesus  was  come  out  of  .Tudea 
into  Galilee,  he  went  uuto  hiiu,  and  besought  him  that 
he  would  come  down,  and  heal  his  son:  tor  he  was  at 
the  point  of  death. 

48  Then  said  Jesus  unto  him,  "Except  ye  see  signs 
and  wonders,  ye  will  not  believe. 

49  The  nobleman  saith  unto  him,  Sir,  come  down  ere 
my  child  die. 

50  Jesus  saith  unto  him.  Go  thy  way ;  thy  son  livetb. 
And  the  man  believed  the  word  that  Jesus  had  spoken 
unto  him,  and  he  went  his  way. 


47  naum.  When  he  heard  that  Jesus  was  come  out 
of  Judaea  into  Galilee,  he  went  unto  him,  and  be- 
sought him  that  he  would  come  down,  aud  heal  his 

48  sou  ;  for  he  was  at  the  point  of  death.  Jesus  there- 
fore said  unto  him.  Except  ye  see  signs  and  won- 

49  ders,  ye  will  in  no  wise  believe.  The  i  uoi)leman 
saith  unto  him,  ^Sir,  come  down  ere  my  child  die. 

50  Jesus  saitli  unto  liim.  Go  thy  way;  thy  son  liveth. 
The  man  believed  the  word  that  Jesus  spake  uuto 


a  1  Cor.  1 ;  2^. 1  Or,  king's  officer 2  Or,  Lord. 


(BaCTiAiKos),  translated  nobleman,  is  used  by 
Josephus  to  denote  a  royal  officer  or  ser- 
vant, whether  civil,  military,  or  domestic. 
This  nobleman  is  generally  supposed  to  have 
been  an  officer  in  the  court  or  household  of 
Herod  Antipas — possibly  Chusa  his  steward 
(Luke8:8),  though  of  this  there  is  no  evidence. 
Whose  son  was  sick.  Literally,  the  son 
of  whom.  And  Meyer  suggests  that  the  ar- 
ticle may  be  used  because  he  was  an  only 
son.      On   Capernaum,  see    note  at  2:  12. 

47.  That  Jesus  was  (or,  is)  come,  etc. 
What  the  nobleman  heard  is  repeated  in  the 
very  form  in  which  he  heard  it;  for  the  re- 
port, as  it  passed  from  lip  to  lip,  was  this: 
Jesus  is  come  from  Judea  into  Galilee.  Hear- 
ing this,  and  learning  where  he  was,  the  no- 
bleman went  {away),  i.  e.,  from  Capernaum, 
unto  him,  in  Cana  of  Galilee.  Aud  be- 
sought (or,  asked)  him — the  word  ask  {ipuiriat) 
is  here  as  often  tised  in  the  sense  of  request — 
that  he  would  come  down  and  heal  his 
son.  The  tense  of  these  verbs  calls  for  ac- 
tion prompt  and  complete.  The  father  wished 
to  have  it  done  at  once ;  he  asked  for  a  mirac- 
ulous cure.^  For  he  was  at  the  point  of 
death.  As  his  son  was  at  the  point  of  death, 
he  felt  that  help  must  come  very  soon,  or  it 
would  be  too  late.  How  brief,  yet  distinct 
and  graphic  is  this  account ! 

48.  Then  (or,  therefore)  said  Jesus  unto 
him.  The  conjunction  therefore  {ow),  em- 
ployed by  John,  proves  that  the  saj'ing  of 
Jesus  was  occasioned  by  the  nobleman's  re- 
quest, and  the  words  unto  him  prove  that  it 
was  addressed  to  the  nobleman.  It  will  not 
then  do  to  affirm  that  this  sas'ing  refers  to 
others  onlj',  and  implies  no  criticism  on  the 
nobleman's  attitude  of  mind  towards  the 
Lord  Jesus.     It  reads  thus  :   Except  ye  see 

'  4va  instead  of  on,  because  the  reason  why  the  re- 
quest was  made,  or  the  end  of  making  it,  was  identical 
with  the  thing  i-equested. — {Meyer.) 


signs  and  wonders,  ye  will  not  believe. 

At  first  sight  this  response  appears  to  be  un- 
natural and  severe.  But  it  should  be  borne 
in  mind  (1)  that  the  nobleman  may  not  have 
come  to  Jesus  because  he  had  full  confidence 
in  his  power  to  heal  the  sick,  but  simply*  as  a 
last  resort,  to  see  if  peradventure  this  reputed 
wonder-worker  might  not  save  the  life  of  his 
dear  child;  (2)  that  Jesus,  reading  his  heart, 
may  have  perceived  that  he  would  reject  his 
claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  unless  it  was  sup- 
])orted  by  evident  miracles;  and  (3)  that  he 
had  no  deep  sense  of  spiritual  need,  preparing 
him  to  appreciate,  in  ordinary  circumstances, 
Jesus  as  a  holj'^  teacher  and  representative  of 
God.  If  so,  this  roj'al  officer  was  but  a  fair 
specimen  of  Galileans  in  general,  so  far  as 
belief  in  Christ  was  concerned,  though  de- 
spair of  help  from  any  other  source  impelled 
him  to  make  trial  of  the  Saviour's  power  and 
grace.  This  view  of  his  state  of  mind  and 
character  accounts  for  the  response  of  Jesus. 
He  was  like  the  people,  and  the  people  like 
him;  and  Jesus  felt  the  difference  between 
the  Galileans  and  the  Samaritans.  Yet  the 
answer  of  Christ  was  not  a  refusal  to  do  what 
the  father  asked.  Nay,  it  was  adapted  to 
strengthen  his  hope  that  Jesus  could  save  the 
life  of  his  boy.  Hence  the  urgency  of  his 
position. 

49.  Sir,  come  down  ere  my  child  die. 
My  little  child  would  be  a  more  exact  ren- 
dering of  the  Greek  words  here  used  bj'  the 
father.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  thought  it 
possible  for  Jesus  to  heal  his  child  without 
going  down  to  Capernaum.  But  the  urgency 
and  tenderness  of  his  appeal  show  that  his 
confidence  in  the  power  of  Jesus  was  in- 
creased. A  father's  heart  cries  out  for  help 
without  delay. 

50.  Go  thy  Avay ;  thy  son  liveth.  These 
words  must  have  been  spoken  with  divine 
authority;  for  the  man  believed  the  word 
that  Jesus  had  spoken  uuto  him,  aud  he 


Ch.  IV.] 


JOHN". 


127 


51  And  as  he  was  now  goins  clown,  his  servants  met 
him,  anil  told  him,  say\w^,'V\\\  sou  liveth. 

o2  Tlien  inquired  he  of  tlicni  Mie  hour  when  he 
began  to  aiueud.  Aud  tliey  said  unto  hiiu.  Yesterday 
at  the  seventh  hour  the  lever  lel't  him. 

.5:i  So  the  father  knew  that  ii  was  at  the  same  hour, 
in  the  wliich  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Thy  sou  liveth:  and 
himself  believed,  and  his  whole  house. 

54  This  is  again  the  second  miracle  Ihaf.  Jesus  did, 
•when  he  was  come  out  of  Judea  into  Galilee. 


51  hira,  and  he  went  his  way.  And  as  he  was  now 
goinj;  down,  his  i  servants  met  him,  saying,  that  his 

52  son  lived.  So  he  inquired  of  them  the  hour  when 
he  began  to  amend.  They  said  therefore  unto  hiui. 
Yesterday  at  the  seventh  hour  the  fever  left  him. 

53  So  the  father  knew  that  ilwax  at  that  hour  in  which 
Jesus  said  unto  him,  Tlty  son  liveth:  and  himself 

54  believed,  and  his  whole  house.  This  is  again  the 
second  sign  t!  at  Jesus  did,  having  come  out  of 
Judiea  into  Galilee. 


I  Or,  bond'Sirvants. 


went  his  Avay.  Hence  the  remark  of  Al- 
ford :  "The  bringing  out  iind  strengthening 
of  the  man's  faith  by  these  words  was  almost 
as  great  a  spiritual  miracle  as  the  material 
one  which  they  indicated."  The  healing  was 
wrought  by  the  will  of  Christ  acting  directly, 
without  the  intervention  of  any  angelic  or 
magnetic  influence.  This  certainly  was  the 
view  of  the  Evangelist. 

51.  And  as  he  was  now  going  down — 
probably  near  the  end  of  the  way,  but  before 
he  entered  Capernaum — his  servants  met 
him,  and  told  him,  saying,  Thy  son  liv- 
eth. The  true  reading  may  be  rendered, 
literally,  saying,  that  his  boy  liveth.  Doubt- 
less, they  had  been  sent  with  the  glad  news 
to  cheer  the  father's  heart,  and  to  inform  him 
that  the  presence  of  Jesus  was  no  longer 
needed.  For  the  word  liveth  evidently  sig- 
nifies "is  alive,  and  likely  to  live";  is  con- 
valescent and  out  of  danger. 

52.  Then  inquired  he  of  them  the  hour 
when  he  began  to  amend.  For  he  now 
wished  to  trace  the  recovery  of  his  son  to  the 
word  of  Jesus  on  which  he  had  believed. 
True  gratitude  longs  to  know  the  giver  of  its 
blessings,  while  an  unthankful  heart  is  will- 
ing to  be  ignorant  of  its  benefactor.  Yester- 
day at  the  seventh  hour  the  fever  left 
him.  During  the  seventh  hour,  would  better 
represent  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  original. 
At  some  time  during  that  hour,  or  graduallj', 
as  that  hour  was  passing,  the  fever  subsided 
and  disappeared.  According  to  Jewish  reck- 
oning, the  seventh  hour  was  one  o'clock  p.  m., 
and  the  period  here  referred  to  from  twelve 
to  one.  But  according  to  the  reckoning  of 
Asia  Minor  and  Kome,  which  was  probablj^ 
followed  by  John,  it  was  seven  o'clock  a.  m., 
or  p.  M.,  and  doubtless  the  latter.  (Compare 
Edersheim,  the  "Life  and  Times  of  the  Mes- 
siah," Vol.  I.,  p.  428,  429.)  At  the  present 
time,  as  well  as  in  the  time  of  Christ,  the  in- 
habitants of  the  Jordan  Valley  are  exposed 
to  severe  attacks  of  fever. 


53.  So  the  father  knew  that  it  was  at 
the  same  hour,  in  the  which  Jesus  said 
unto  him,  Thy  son  liveth.     If  we  assume 
that  the  Evangelist  follows  the  Hebrew  mode 
of  denoting  the  hours  of  the  day,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  account  for  the  length  of  time  con- 
sumed   by    the    nobleman    in    returning    to 
Capernaum.     The  distance  between  the  two 
places  could  not  have  been  more  than  about 
fifteen  miles;    and  at  a  very  moderate  pace 
the  nobleman  could  have  reached  home  be- 
fore sunset— i.  e.,  by  a  journey  of  four  or  five 
hours.     But  his  servants  met  him  on  his  way 
homeward,  and  reported  that  the  change  in 
the  condition  of  his  child  had  occurred  the 
day  before.     Would  this  language  have  been 
natural  if  used  in  the  early  evening  of  what 
had  taken  place  in  the  previous  afternoon? 
We  cannot  pronounce  it  impossible  ;   nor  can 
we  be  absolutely  sure  that  the  nobleman  was 
not  detained  by  some  unknown  circumstance 
on  his  way  homeward,  so  that  he  failed  to 
reach  Capernaum  that  evening.    But  the  nar- 
rative suggests  no  delay ;   and,  on  the  whole, 
it  seems  improbable  that  he  left  Cana  at  one 
o'clock  p.  M.,  and  did  not  meet  his  servants 
until  the  next  day.     But  if  John,  as  we  be- 
lieve, follows  the  other   mode  of  reckoning 
the  hours  of  the  day,  this  difficulty  at  once 
vanishes  away.     For,  starting  from  Cana  of 
G-alilee  at  seven   o'clock    p.    m.,    the   father 
would  be  unable,  even  if  he  picked  his  way 
slowly   downward   through    the   darkness  of 
the  night,  to  arrive  in  the  vicinity  of  Caper- 
naum before  the  midnight  hour  had  passed, 
and  another  day  begun.     And  himself  be- 
lieved—i.  e.,  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  ;  became 
a  true   di.sciple  of  Christ.     And   his  whole 
house.     This  perhaps  was  the  first  instance 
of   household    conversion,    and    possibly    of 
household  baptism.      See  notes  on   verse  3. 
54.  This  is  again  the  second   miracle 
(or   sign)    that  Jesus  did  when  he  was 
come  out  of  Judea   into  Galilee.    That 
is,  when  Jesus  had  come  from  Judea  into 


128 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  V. 


CHAPTEK   V. 


AFTER  "this  there  was  a  feast  of  the  Jews;  and 
Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem. 


After  these  things  there  was  '  a  feast  of  the  Jews ; 
and  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem. 


a  Lev.  -23  :  2;  Deut.  16 :  1 ;  ch.  2  :  13. 1  Man;  ancient  authorities  read,  the  feaet. 


Galilee,  he  again  wrought  a  sign — a  second 
one  for  that  region.  Many  had  been  wrought 
by  him  in  Jerusalem,  but  this  was  the  second 
one  performed  in  Galilee.  Notice  the  style 
of  this  narrative ;  for  it  bears  all  the  marks 
of  truth.  It  is  simple,  minute,  graphic,  ob- 
jective. It  says  nothing  of  the  motives  of 
Christ,  or  of  the  nobleman;  it  eulogizes 
neither,  criticises  neither ;  it  confines  itself 
to  a  bare  recital  of  events  as  they  occurred. 
We  are  unable  to  detect  the  slightest  effort  to 
do  more  than  this  or  less  than  this. 

The  healing  of  the  nobleman's  son  is  not  to 
be  confounded  with  the  healing  of  the  cen- 
turion's   servant    (Matt.  S:  S-IS;  Luke  ?:  I-IO).      For, 

while  there  are  but  two  points  of  coincidence, 
namely,   that  in   both   instances  the    person 
cured  was   in  Capernaum,   and   the  miracle 
described  was  wrought  from  a  distance,  there  I 
are  many  points  of  difference— e.  g.,  in  this,  i 
Christ  is  said  to  have  been  at  Cana,  in  that,  at 
Capernaum ;     in    this,    he    is    said    to    have  j 
wrought  the  miracle  just  after  his  return  to  j 
Galilee  through  Samaria,  in  that,  just  after  j 
his  coming  down  from  the  place  of  his  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount;  in  this,  the  person  healed 
is  called  a  son  of  the  petitioner,  in  that,   a 
servant  of  the  petitioner;  in  this,  the  petitioner 
is  called  a  king's  servant  (Bao-tXneos),  in  that, 
he  is  called  a  centurion  ;  in  this,  he  appears 
to  be  a  Jew,  in  that,  he  is  a  Gentile ;  in  this, 
he  is  represented  as  a  man    of  weak  faith, 
in   that,    as  a  man  of  great  faith ;    in  this, 
Christ  virtually  refuses  to  go  with  him  to  his 
home,  in  that  he  offers  to  go  thither  with  him. 
These  differences  are  so  many  and  important, 
that  the  miracles  cannot  be  regarded  as  one 
and  the  same.       

Ch.  5 :  1-9.  Cure  of  an  Infirm  Man 
ON  THE  Sabbath.  Second  Passover, 
March  30,  a.  d  28,  or  Pentecost,  May  19, 
A.  D.  28. 

1.  After  this.  How  long  after,  the  phrase 
does  not  determine.  But  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that,  after  healing  the  nobleman's  son 
(John  4: 46-54),  he  tarried  a  little  while  in  that 
neighborhood,   visiting    together  with   other 


places  Nazareth,  where,  in  the  synagogue, 
he  expounded  the  Scripture  in  relation  to 
himself,  and  was  rejected  with  wrath  by  the 
people  (Luke  4: 16-30) ;  that  thus  rejected  he  went 
down  again  to  Capernaum  (see  John  2:  12, 
and  Luke  4:  31),  and  made  it  his  residence, 
finding  there  Andrew  and  Peter,  James  and 
John,  who  had  returned  to  their  emploj'- 
ment,  and  whom  he  called  to  be  his  regular 

attendants     and     pupils    (Matt.  4:  18-22;  Luke  5:  i-u). 

There,  also,  he  healed  a  demoniac  in  the 
synagogue  (Mark  1:21-28;  Luke 4: 31-37),  and  Petcr's 
wife's  mother  who  was  sick  of  a  fever  (Matt,  s: 
14-17;  Luke  1:38, 39),  and  wrought  Other  cures. 
Moreover,  he  preached  throughout  Galilee, 
healing  many,  and  especially  a  leper  (Mark  i: 
35-45;  Luke 4: 42-64;  5: 12-15),  after  which  circuit  he 
healed  a  paralytic  in  Capernaum  (Mark 2: 1-12; 
Luke5: 17-26),  Called  Lcvi  (or  Matthew)  to  disci- 
pleship,  and  attended  a  feast  in  his  house 
(Mark  2;  13-17;  Luke  5: 27-32),  and  probably  gave  in- 
struction in  respect  to  fasting  (Mark2:  i6-20). 
All  this,  at  least,  occurred  between  what  is 
recorded  by  John  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
and  the  visit  to  Jerusalem  here  described. 
There  was  a  feast  of  the  Jews.  What 
feast  of  the  Jews  is  here  meant,  has  long  been 
a  matter  of  doubt,  [a)  Westcott  supposes 
that  it  maj'  have  been  the  Feast  of  Trumpets 
or  Trumpet-blowing  at  the  beginning  of  the 
seventh  month  (September-October),  the  first 
month  of  the  civil  year  (see  Lev.  23:  24; 
Numb.  29:  1-6).  But  this  is  forbidden  by  a 
correct  interpretation  of  4:  35 — an  interpret- 
ation which  he  admits  to  be  more  natural 
than  any  other,  and  which  proves  that  it  was 
already  as  late  as  December  when  Jesus  came 
through  Samaria  to  Galilee,  (b)  Meyer  sup- 
poses that  it  must  be  the  Feast  of  Purim, 
which  occurred  about  the  middle  of  March, 
and  which  might  have  been  called  simply  "  a 
feast  of  the  Jews,"  because  it  was  one  of 
minor  importance.  But  there  are  objections 
of  some  weight  to  this  reference.  (1)  The 
feast  seems  to  be  mentioned  for  no  reason 
but  that  of  accounting  for  Christ's  going  up 
to  Jerusalem,  while  Purim  was  not  a  feast  at 
which  the  Galileans  were  accustomed  to  visit 


Ch.  v.] 


JOHK 


129 


2  Now  there  is  at  Jerusalem  "  by  the  sheep  market  a 
pool,  which  is  culled  in  the  Hebrew  tongue  Bethesda, 
having  five  porches. 


2     Now  there  is  in  Jerusalem  by  the  sheep  gate  a 
pool,  which  is  called  in  Hebrew  >  Bethesda,  liaving 


s  Neh.  3:1;  12  :  39. 1  Some  ancient  authorities  read,  Bethsaida ;  others,  Bethzatha. 


the  holy  city.  (2)  The  usages  connected  with 
it  were  such  as  the  Lord  would  not  have 
been  likely  to  honor  by  his  presence.  (3) 
The  theory  that  this  feast  was  Purini,  and 
that  the  feast  mentioned  in  6 :  4  was  the  Pass- 
over, occurring  one  month  later,  limits  the 
ministry  of  Christ  to  about  two  and  a  quarter 
years,  instead  of  about  three  and  a  quarter 
years,  which  latter  appears  to  us  its  probable 
duration.  (4)  It  crowds  too  many  events 
into  the  three  weeks  that  may  be  assigned  to 
Galilee  between  Purim  and  the  Passover. 
(5)  It  does  not  account  so  well  for  the  early 
textual  variation  {the  feast  for  a  feast)  as  does 
the  view  that  it  was  the  Passover,  or  some 
important  religious  festival;  for  that  variant 
reading  shows  at  least  an  early  interpretation. 
(c)  Kobinson  supposes  that  it  was  the  Pass- 
over. In  favor  of  this  view  it  has  been,urged 
(1)  that,  unless  something  prevented,  Jesus 
would  be  very  likel3'  to  visit  Jerusalem  at 
this  great  festival.  (2)  That,  if  this  feast  was 
the  Passover,  an  early  tradition  to  this  effect 
might  account  for  the  insertion  of  the  article 
in  some  ancient  manuscripts  before  the  word 
"feast."  (3)  That  it  leads  us  to  believe  that 
the  ministry  of  Jesus  continued  more  than 
three  years,  giving  suitable  timefor  his  mani- 
fold works ;  for  the  instruction  of  the  eleven, 
and  for  the  gathering  storm  of  opposition  to 
reach  its  height.  But  against  it  has  been 
pressed  the  fact  that  John  elsewhere  gives  the 
name  of  this  feast,  as  well  as  of  other  import- 
ant feasts  (see  2 :  13,  23;  6:4;  11:  55;  12:  1; 
13:  1;  18:  28,  39;  19:  14).  {d)  McClellan  be- 
lieves that  it  was  the  Pentecost  following  the 
second  Passover  of  Christ's  ministry.  And 
it  may  be  more  probable  that  John  would 
refer  to  the  Pentecost— a  kind  of  appendix  to 
the  Passover — as  a  feast  of  the  Jews,  without 
naming  it,  than  that  he  would  thus  refer  to 
the  Passover.  On  the  whole  we  see  less  ob- 
jection to  this  view  than  to  any  other,  but 
hesitate  between  it  and  the  Passover.  And 
Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  Doubtless 
attended  by  his  disciples,  now  including 
Matthew,  or  at  least  by  some  of  them.  For, 
during  the  four,  or  five  and  a  half,  months 
which  Jesus  had  spent  in  Galilee,  since  his 


return  from  Judea  through  Samaria,  must 
have  occurred  his  rejection  at  Nazareth  (Luke 
4:16-30),  his  selection  of  Capernaum  as  an 
abode  (Luke4:3i;  Matt.  4: 13-16),  the  Call  of  Peter 
and  Andrew,  James  and  John,  to  special  dis- 

cipleship  (Luke  5:  l-U  ;  Matt.  4  :  18-22;  Mark  1:16-20),  with 

the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes,  the  healing 
of  a  demoniac  in  the  synagogue  (Mark  i:  21-28; 
Luke4:3i-37),  the  curc  of  Peter' s  wifc's  mother 

and    many  others    (Matt.  S:  U-n;  Mark  1:29-34;  Luke  4: 

38-41),  a  circuit  of  Jesus   throughout  Galilee 

(Mark  1  :  35-39;  Luke  4  :  42-44;  Miitl.  4:  23-25),  the  healing 
of  a    leper  (Matl.  8:2-4;  Mark  1 :  40-45  ;  Luke  5  :  12-16),  the 

healing  of  a  paralytic  (Mark  2: 1-12;  Luke  5: 17-26; 
Matt.  9:2-8),  and  the  call  of  Matthew  (Mau.9:9; 

Mark  2  :  13,  14 ;  Luke  5  :  27,  28). 

2.  Now  there  is  at  Jerusalem.  The  ex- 
pression there  is,  has  been  supposed  to  prove 
that  this  Gospel  was  written  by  one  not  fa- 
miliar with  the  history  of  Jerusalem.  But 
the  evidence  which  it  gives  is  of  little  value; 
for,  not  to  insist  that  some  remains  of  the 
pool  probably  existed  after  the  overthrow  of 
the  city,  the  present  tense  of  the  verb  may 
be  explained  as  due  to  the  writer's  vivid  re- 
collection.— By  the  sheep-market  a  pool. 
The  Greek  word  translated  sheep-market, 
is  simply  an  adjective,  meaning,  "belonging 
to  sheep"  (irpo/SaTticn),  and  if  any  noun  is  sup- 
plied after  it,  that  noun  should  be  "gate" 
rather  than  "  market."  For  there  appears  to 
have  been  a  sheep-gate  (Neh. 3:1,32;  12:39)  in  the 
wall  of  the  city,  not  far  from  the  temple. 
But  Meyer,  "Weiss,  Milligan  and  Moulton, 
and  other.s,  suppose  that  the  word  for  pool 
(xoAuMlSij-Va)  was  originally  in  the  dative  case 
(icoAun^^Jpa),  so  that  John  wrote,  There  is  in 
Jerusalem,  near  the  sheep-j)ool,  the  (one) 
natned  (or  surnamed)  Bethesda.  Weiss  sup- 
poses the  surname  Bethesda,  "house  of 
mercy,"  was  applied  to  the  porches  and 
building,  rather  than  to  the  pool  with  which 
they  were  connected.  Thus  understood,  the 
language  of  John  may  be  rendered  :  There  is 
in  Jerusalem,  by  the  sheep-pool,  the  house 
surnamed  House  of  Mercy.  "Early  writers 
also  (Eusebius  and  Jerome)  do  actually  s^.<eak 
of  a  sheep-pool  in  Jerusalem  in  connection 
with  this  passage.     Ammonius  tells  us  that 


130 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  V. 


3  In  these  lay  a  great  multitude  of  impotent  folk,  of 
blind,  halt,  withered,  waiting  for  the  moving  of  the 
water. 

4  For  an  angel  went  down  at  a  certain  season  into 
the  pool,  and  troubled  the  water:  whosoever  then  first 
after  the  troubling  of  the  water  stepped  in  was  made 
whole  of  whatsoever  disease  he  had. 


3  five  porches.    In  these  lay  a  multitude  of  them  that 


the  pool  was  so  called  from  the  habit  of  gath- 
ering together  l^ere  the  theep  that  were  to  be 
sacrificed  for  the  feast;  similarly  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia."— (Milligan  and  Moulton.) 
These  expositors  suppose  that  there  are  two 
pools  referred  to,  the  location  of  the  one 
being  described  by  its  nearness  to  the  other, 
which  may  have  been  larger  and  better 
known.  But  Weiss  appears  to  think  there 
may  have  been  only  one  pool,  with  a  kind  of 
infirmary  attached.  Having  five  porches— 
i.  e.,  small  buildings  or  porticos,  for  the  con- 
venience of  the  sick  who  waited  for  the  mov- 
ing of  the  water. 

The  site  of  Bethesda  has  not  been  satisfac- 
torily identified.  The  Birket  Israel,  north  of 
the  temple  area,  the  Fountain  of  the  Virgin, 
and  the  Pool  of  Siloam,  have  been  suggested 


1  The  words,  "  waiting  for  the  moving  of  the  water" 
in  ver.  3,  and  the  whole  of  ver.  4,  must,  beyond  ques- 
tion, be  omitted  from  the  text.  The  clause  of  ver.  3  is 
wanting  in  N  A  (first  hand)  B  C  (first  hand)  L,  18,  157, 
314,  one  copy  of  the  Old  Latin,  the  Old  Syriac  (Cure- 
tonian),  Meraphitic  (in  at  least  fifteen  of  the  best 
codices,  according  to  Bishop  Lightfoot),  Thebaic.  The 
whole  of  ver.  4  is  wanting  in  J<  B  C  (first  hand)  P,  33, 
157,  314,  two  or  three  copies  of  the  Old  Latin,  several 
copies  of  the  Latin  Vul^jate,  the  Old  Syriac,  Memphitic, 
(nearly  as  above).  Thebaic,  many  codices  of  the  Ar- 
menian. Chrysostom  is  the  first  Greek  Father  giving 
either  passage.  Here  the  internal  evidence  (transcrip- 
tional) is  clear  and  conclusive.  Ver.  7  shows  that  at 
intervals  the  water  was  "  troubled,"  and  that  people 
believed  that  the  first  infirm  person  who  then  entered 
the  pool  received  the  only,  or  by  far  the  principal 
benefit.  The  Evangelist  does  not  say  that  this  was 
true.  But  it  was  a  notion  highly  acceptable  to  many 
minds  among  the  early  Christians,  who  would  easily 
ascribe  this  beneficent  troubling  of  the  pool  to  an 
angel.  Accordingly,  TertuUian,  in  his  treatise  on  Bap- 
tism (written  about  a.  d.  200),  says  that  an  angel  used 
to  come  and  disturb  the  Pool  of  Bethsaida  (so  B,  and 
many  versions),  etc.  It  has  not  been  pointed  out,  but 
this  seems  to  be  Tertullian's  own  explanation  of  John 
5:  7,  even  as  he  speaks  elsewhere  in  the  same  treatise 
of  an  angel  superintending  baptism,  and  in  other  trea- 
tises of  an  angel  of  prayer,  an  angel  of  marriage,  etc. 
He  says:  "An  angel  used  to  interfere  and  trouble  the 
water  of  Bethsaida ;  it  was  observed  by  those  who 
complained  of  ill-health:  /or  whoever  was  first  to  de- 
scend thither,  ceased  after  the  bath  to  complain." 
The  clause  beginning  with  "  for  "  is  drawn  from  ver.  7 ; 


by  different  scholars  as  the  scene  of  the  follow- 
ing miracle.  For  arguments  supposed  to  favor 
the  Fountain  of  the  Virgin,  see  Robinson's 
"Biblical  Researches,"  etc..  Vol.  I.,  pp.337 
sq.,  (Am.  Ed.);  and  for  those  which  are 
brought  for  the  Pool  of  Siloam,  see  note  at 
the  close  of  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  Vol.  I. 

3.  In  these  lay  a  great  multitude.  The 
word  great  before  multitude  is  rejected 
from  tile  common  text  by  the  best  editors 
and  scholars.  Of  impotent  folk,  of  blind, 
halt,  Avithered.  The  last  three  words  are 
probably  specifications  of  the  classes  of  sick 
folk  that  resorted  to  the  "House  of  Mercy." 
They  seem  to  have  been,  for  the  most  part, 
those  who  were  afflicted  beyond  the  reach  of 
medicine  as  administered  by  physicians.^ 

5.   Which  had  an  infirmity  thirty  and 

and  the  rest  he  seems  to  be  inferring  from  this  fact, 
and  establishing  by  it.  Similar  statements  are  made 
by  the  Greek  Fathers  Didymus  (fourth  cent.),  and  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  (fifth  cent.).  This  notion,  grown  into  a 
tradition,  would  very  naturally  be  put  by  some  per- 
sons on  the  margin  of  the  Gospel,  to  account  for  ver.  7, 
and  being  supposed  by  later  copyists  to  be  a  part  of  the 
text  accidentally  omitted,  would  be  introduced  after 
ver.  3,  seeming  to  fit  exactly.  Even  without  the  tra- 
ditioa  the  mere  contemplation  of  ver.  7  might  lead 
some  one  to  make  the  other  explanatory  marginal 
note,  "  waiting  for  the  moving  of  the  water,"  which 
would  then  creep  into  the  text.  So  we  notice  that  D 
has  this  clause,  but  has  not  ver.  4 ;  while  A  has  ver.  4, 
but  not  the  preceding  clause.  The  tradition  would 
naturally  be  written  on  the  margin  by  difi'erent  per- 
sons in  different  terms,  and  accordingly  we  find  much 
variety  of  expression  in  the  documents  which  give 
ver.  4.  Thus  the  entrance  of  these  two  clauses  into 
the  text  of  many  documents  is  readily  accounted  for, 
and  all  the  minor  differences  explained.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  cannot  in  any  wise  account  for  the  omission 
of  these  statements,  if  originally  present  in  the  text. 
They  agree  with  ver.  7,  and  with  the  whole  connection. 
Some  devout  persons  of  the  present  day  might  prefer 
to  be  rid  of  the  miraculous  healing  and  the  angel ;  but 
there  was  no  such  feeling  in  the  early  centuries.  Since 
then  the  two  passages  are  wanting  in  so  many  of  the 
earliest  and  best  documents,  and  their  subsequent  in- 
sertion can  be  very  easily  explained,  while  their  omis- 
sion would  be  unaccountable,  there  can  be  no  question 
that  they  are  spurious;  and  they  are  so  regarded  by 
nearly  all  recent  critics,  even  of  the  more  conservative 
school. — B. 


Ch.  v.] 


JOHN. 


131 


5  And  a  certain  nian  was  there,  which  had  an  in- 
firmity thirty  and  eight  years. 

6  When  Jesus  saw  hiiu  lie,  and  knew  that  he  had 
been  now  a  long  time  in  thai  caan,  he  saitli  unto  hiiu. 
Wilt  thou  be  made  whole? 

7  The  impotent  man  answered  him,  Sir,  I  have  no 
man,  when  the  water  is  troubled,  to  put  me  into  the 
pool;  but  while  I  am  coming,  another  steppeth  down 
before  me. 

8  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  <■  Rise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and 
walk. 


5  were  sick,  blind,  halt,  withered.^  And  a  certain 
man  was  there,  who  had  been  thirty  and  eight  years 

6  in  his  infirmity.  When  Jesus  saw  him  lying,  and 
knew  that  he  had  been  now  a  long  time  in.  lluit  cu.s';, 
he  saith  unto  him,  Wouldest  thou  be  made  whole? 

7  The  sick  man  answered  him,  2, sir,  1  have  no  man, 
when  the  water  is  troubled,  to  put  me  into  the  poid: 
but  while  I  am  coming,  another  steppeth  down  be- 

8  tore  me.    Jesus  saith  unto  him.  Arise,  take  up  thy 


a  M:itt.  9:6;  Xfark  2:11;   Luke  5 :  24. 1  Many  jiDcient  aiithnrilies  inseit,  wholly  or  in  part,  waiting  for  the.  moning  of  the  vmter:  \ for 

an  angel  of  the  Lord  ivent  down  at  certain  seasons  into  the  pool,  and  trouhled  the  water :  whosoever  then  first  after  the  troubling  of  the 
water  stepped  in  was  made  whole,  with  whatsoever  disease  he  was  liolden. . .  .2  Or,  Lord. 


eight  years.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  |  merit  of  the  water  at  irregular  times.  And 
text  does  not  mention  the  time  whicli  had  there  may  have  been  such  a  movement,  with- 
been  spent  by  this  man  at  the  pool,  vvliether  out  any  miracle.  For  it  is  well-known  that 
a  week,  a  month,  or  a  year,  but  it  does  refer  I  certain  intermittent  springs  flow  at  irregular 


to  the  duration  of  his  infirmity — he  had  been 
an  invalid  thirt^'-eight  years,  and,  therefore, 
recovery  by  any  ordinary  means  was  hope- 
less. Perhaps  he  made  his  way  to  the  pool 
day  by  day  with  much  effort. 

6.  And  knew  that  he  had  been  noAV  a 
long  time.  Tiie  knowledge  of  Jesus  was 
evidently  superhuman,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
woman  of  Samaria  (*:  n-ig),  of  those  who  be- 
lieved in  Jerusalem  (2:23.25),  and  of  Na- 
thanael  (i:<8).  To  suppose  that  he  had  ob- 
tained a  knowledge  of  this  cripple  by  natural 
means,  is  inconsistent  with  the  manifest  tenor 
of  this  narrative,  and  of  the  whole  Gospel. 
The  long  time  here  noted  appears  to  refer  to 
the  thirty-eight  j'ears  of  infirmity,  and  not  to 
the  lying  in  one  of  the  porches  at  the  pool. 
Wilt  thou  (or,   dost  thou  wish  to)he  made 


intervals,  and  that  the  water  of  others  is 
increased  in  the  same  way.  This  is  said  to  be 
true  of  the  Fountain  of  the  Virgin,  east  of 
Jerusalem.  But  a  sudden  commotion  and 
increase  of  the  waters,  taking  place  after 
unequal  intervals,  would  be  very  naturally 
ascribed  to  divine  interposition.  But  while 
I  am  coming,  another  steppeth  down 
before  me.  Hence  it  appears  that  the  troub- 
ling of  the  water  was  of  short  duration,  and 
confined  to  only  a  small  part  of  the  pool,  so 
that  but  one  could  test  its  healing  virtue  on  a 
single  occasion.  These  circumstances  fully 
account  for  the  marginal  gloss  which  has 
found  its  way  into  the  text  in  ver.  4,  and  a 
part  of  ver.  3. 

8.  Rise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  walk. 

Meyer   saj's:    "The    command    presupposes 


Avhole  ?    An  ab.surd  or  impertinent  question,  |  that  the  man  had  faith,  which  was  recognized 


unless  it  were  meant  to  intimate  a  power  and 
disposition  on  the  part  of  Jesus  to  heal  the 
sufl'erer.  For  why  was  he  there,  if  not  to  be 
healed? 

7.  I  have  no  man,  etc.  The  impotent 
man  failed  to  catch  the  meaning  of  our  Sa- 
viour's question,  and  to  feel  the  power  of  his 
presence.  He  may  have  been  penitent;  but 
he  was  losing  all  hope.  Neglected,  and  per- 
haps despised  by  men,  his  quickness  of  obser- 
vation had  suffered  with  his  body.  His 
thoughts  flowed  on  in  their  wonted  course; 
to  enter  the  pool  at  the  proper  moment  was 
his  last  hope;  but  he  was  poor  and  friendless, 
unable  to  move  quickly  without  help,  and 
yet  looking  in  vain  for  help.  His  infirmity 
was,  doubtless,  the  fruit  of  sinful  indulgence 
(ver.  14),  and  his  character  had,  probably,  been 
lost  with  his  hea'lth.  When  the  water  is 
troubled.    This  expression  implies  a  move- 


by  Christ."  But  the  narrative  aflx)rds  no 
trace  of  this  faith  prior  to  the  word  of  com- 
mand. If  one  is  guided,  not  by  theory,  but 
by  the  language  of  John,  he  will  conclude 
that  faith  was  born  in  the  poor  man's  heart 
when  the  triple  command,  uttered  with  di- 
vine authoritj%  and  accompanied  with  heal- 
ing energy,  fell  upon  his  ear— and  not  a 
moment  before.  The  grace  of  Christ  was  in 
this  case  prevenient.  The  Greek  student  will 
notice  the  difl^erence  between  the  tense  of  the 
verb  translated  take  up,  and  that  of  the  verb 
translated  walk— the  former  denoting  an  act 
completed,  and  the  latter  picturing  an  act  in 
progress.  He  will  also  observe  that  the  word 
rendered  bed  («po/3^aTos  or  Kpa|3aTTo«),  means  a 
small  couch,  mattress,  or  pallet,  which  the 
cripple  could  easily  bear  awa^'.  It  may  in- 
deed be  presumed  that  he  himself,  though 
slowly  and  painfully,  had  brought  this  bed 


132 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  V. 


9  And  immediately  the  man  was  made  whole,  and 
took  up  his  bed,  and  walked:  and  "on  the  same  day 
was  the  sabbath. 

10  The  Jews  therefore  said  unto  him  that  was  cured. 
It  is  the  sabbath  day:  'it  is  not  lawl'ul  for  thee  to 
carry  Ihy  bed. 

11  He  answered  them,  He  that  made  me  whole,  the 
same  said  unto  me.  Take  ujithy  bed,  and  walk. 

12  Then  asked  they  him.  What  man  is  that  which 
said  unto  thee,  Take  up  thy  bed,  and  walk? 


9 1  bed,  and  walk.  And  straightway  the  man  was 
made  whole,  and  took  up  his  i  bed  and  walked. 

10  Now  it  was  the  sabbath  on  that  day.  So  the  Jews 
said  unto  him  that  was  cured,  It  is  the  sabbath,  and 
and  it  is  not  lawful  for  thee  to  take  up  thy  i  bed. 

11  But  he  answered  them,  He  that  made  me  whole,  the 
same  said  uuto  me.  Take  up  thy  ibed,  and  walk. 

12  They  asked  him,  Who  is  the  man  that  said  uuto 


cli.9:  U....6  Ex.  20:  10;  N.eh.  13:  19;  Jer.  17:21,eto.;  Matt.l2:2;  Mark2:24;  3:4;   Luke6:2;   13:14. 10r,pa«e«. 


to  the  House  of  Mercy.     "With  what  ease  he 
now  bore  it  away  ! 

9.  Immediately  the  man  was  made 
whole.  The  cure  was  instantaneous  and 
perfect,  preceding  the  act  of  obedience. 
Took  up  his  bed — aorist  of  completed 
action — and  walked,  or,  began  walking; 
imperfect  tense,  used  of  incomplete  action. 
Feeling  his  strengtli  restored,  the  man  yielded 
to  the  command  of  Jesus;  but  apparently 
without  exultation,  and  certainly  without 
asking  the  name  of  his  benefactor  (comp. 
Acts  3:  8).  He  appears  to  have  been  in  this 
respect  like  the  nine  lepers  who  did  not 
return  to  give  thanks  to  Jesus  (Lute  i;:  n). 

9-16.  The  Jews  Offexded  Because 
This  was  Done  on  the  Sabbath. 

And  on  the  same  day, — more  correctly, 
as  in  Rev.  Ver., — Now  it  was  the  Sabbath  on 
that  day.  A  circumstance  mentioned  by  the 
Evangelist  to  prepare  the  mind  of  the  reader 
for  what  is  now  to  be  related. 

10.  The  Jews  therefore.  Not  the  com- 
mon people,  but  those  in  authority.  Me^'er 
limits  the  reference  to  members  of  the  San- 
hedrin  ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient 
reason  for  supposing  that  leading  scribes  and 
priests,  not  belonging  to  the  Sanhedrin,  were 
not  included.  Said  unto  him  that  was 
cured.  Said  =  were  saying — because  the 
reproof  was  repeated  by  one  and  another  as 
the  man  bore  along  his  couch.  It  is  the 
sabbath-day  ;  it  is  not  lawful  for  thee 
to  carry  thy  bed — or,  the  bed,  which  they 
saw  liim  bearing.  Godet  remarks  that  "the 
Rabbins  distinguished  thirty  kinds  of  labor 
as  prohibited  by  the  Fourth  Commandment. 
The  act  of  bearing  a  couch,  and  that  of  heal- 
ing, are  expressly  forbidden  by  their  tradi- 
tion. Hence  the  reproach  addressed  to  this 
man  bj'  the  Jews,  who  identified  the  Rab- 
binic explanation  of  the  command  with  its 
re:il  meaning."  Alford  alleges  Neh.  13: 
15-19;  Ex.  31 :  13-17;  Jer.  17  :  21,  22,  as  proof 


that  the  bearing  of  such  a  burden  "was  for- 
bidden by  the  law  itself."  But  the  passages 
are  scarcely  definite  enough  to  prove  the 
statement.  Yet  SchafF  agrees  with  Alford  in 
maintaining  that  this  act  of  the  restored  man 
was,  in  itself,  a  transgression  of  the  Mosaic 
law. 

11.  This  response  was  both  natural  and 
sufficient.  Whatever  might  be  the  import  of 
the  Fourth  Commandment,  the  man  who  had 
been  healed  felt  that  the  authority  of  One,  at 
whose  word  so  great  a  cure  had  been  wrought, 
must  be  divine.  This  is  evident  from  his 
use  of  the  pronoun  translated  the  same 
{Uf.lvo%) ;  for  this  pronoun  would  have  been 
superfluous,  had  he  not  wished  to  emphasize 
the  identity  of  the  one  by  whose  direction  he 
was  bearing  his  couch  with  the  one  who  had 
made  him  whole.  "The  person  who  made 
me  whole,  that  one,  and  no  other,  said  unto 
me:  Take  up  thy  bed,  and  walk."  On  the 
least  favorable  hypothesis  of  the  infirm  man's 
character,  he  urges  this  as  a  good  excuse  for 
bearing  his  couch  on  the  Sabbath. 

12.  The  restored  cripple  may  have  laid 
down  his  bed  at  their  reproof,  so  that  they 
had  no  occasion  to  remonstrate  further  with 
him;  or  the  mention  of  one  who  had  made 
him  whole,  and  commanded  him  to  bear  his 
couch,  may  have  turned  away  their  thoughts 
from  the  healed  to  the  healer,  or,  as  they  looked 
at  the  matter,  from  the  secondary  transgressor 
to  the  primary.  For  they  do  not  ask  :  "  Who 
is  the  man  that  made  thee  whole?"  but: 
What  man  is  that,  etc.  Better,  Who  is  the 
man  that  said  unto  thee  :  Take  up  thy  bed 
and  ivalk  9  Plainly'  they  were  in  a  critical 
mood.  The  law  of  the  Sabbath,  as  they  in- 
terpreted it,  had  been  broken,  and  they 
wished  to  get  at  the  principal  offender. 
Some  of  them  probably'  recollected  the  signs 
wrought  by  Jesus  at  the  preceding  passover, 
the  success  which  he  had  had  in  the  province 
of  Judea  for  months  after,  and  perhaps  the 


Ch.  v.] 


JOHN. 


133 


13  And  he  that  was  healed  wist  not  who  it  was:  for 
Jesus  had  conveyed  himself  away,  a  multitude  being 
in  thai  place. 

14  Afterward  Jesus  findeth  him  in  the  temple,  and 
said  unto  him.  Behold,  tliou  art  made  whole;  "sin  no 
more,  lest  a  worse  thing  come  unto  thee. 

15  The  man  departed,  and  told  the  Jews  that  it  was 
Jesus,  which  had  made  him  whole 

16  And  therefore  did  the  Jews  persecute  Jesus,  and 
sought  to  slay  him,  because  he  had  done  these  things 
on  the  sabbath  day. 


13  thee.  Take  up  thy  '  bed,  and  walk  ?  But  he  that  was 
healed  knew  not  who  it  wa.-s:  for  .lesus  had  con- 
veyed himself  away,  a  multitude  being  in  the  place. 

14  Afterward  Jesus  findeth  him  in  the  temple,  and  said 
unto   him.  Behold,   thou  art  made   whole;    sin    no 

15  more,  lest  a  worse  thing  befall  thee.  The  man  went 
away,  an<]  told  the  Jews  that  it  was  Jesus  who  had 

16  made  him  whole.  And  for  this  cause  did  the  Jews 
persecute  Jesus,  because  he  did  these  things  on  the 


i  Matt.  12  :  45  ;  ch.  8  :  11. 1  Or,  pallet. 


reports  which  had  reached  them  of  his  work 
in  Galilee.  If  so,  they  must  have  suspected 
that  the  same  Jesus  had  returned  to  Jerusa- 
lem again.  Meyer  thinks  that  their  reference 
to  him  as  ihe  man  was  slightly  contemptuous, 
and  the  same  view  may  be  taken  of  their  ab- 
breviated repetition  of  his  command  to  the 
cripple;  for,  according  to  the  best  authori- 
ties, they  made  it  as  curt  as  possible:  Take 
up,  and  walk;  instead  of:  Take  up  thy  bed 
and  walk. 

13.  But  the  man  who  had  been  healed 
knew  not  his  benefactor;  for  Jesus  had 
quietly  withdrawn.  "He  spoke  the  healing 
word,  and  passed  on  unobserved" — (Schaff.) 
A  multitude  being  in  that  place.  This 
clause  maj'  have  been  added  to  explain  wh}' 
Jesus  wished  to  withdraw  unrecognized,  or 
why  he  was  able  to  do  so.  The  former  is 
probably'  the  reason  in  the  mind  of  the  Evan- 
gelist. He  knew  that  Jesus  did  not  wish  to 
attract  the  attention  of  the  people  to  him  as 
a  miracle-woi'ker  at  that  time  and  place. 
Doubtless,  there  were  many  sick  persons  there ; 
but  the  Saviour  saw  no  sufficient  reason  for 
restoring  others  to  health  bj'  a  word.  This, 
then,  ma^'  be  regarded  as  an  instance  of  per- 
sonal election,  not  arbitrary,  but  for  reasons 
unrevealed. 

14.  Though  the  infirm  man  had  been 
afflicted  thirtj'-eight  years,  Jesus  seems  to 
have  known  his  past  life  as  perfectly  as  he 
knew  that  of  the  Samaritan  woman  ;  and  so, 
finding  him  soon  after  in  the  sacred  enclos- 
ure, he  said  to  him:  Behold  thou  art  (hast 
been)  made  whole:  sin  no  more,  lest  a 
Avorse  thing  come  unto  thee.  This  admo- 
nition implies  that  his  thirty-eight  years  of 
suffering  were  the  result  of  some  particular 
kind  of  sin  (Chrys.,  Mey.,  Lange,  Alf ,  and 
others).  But  "neither  the  special  sin  nor  the 
special  disease  is  known." — (Lange.)  The 
"something  worse"   ix^ipov  n),  says  Trench, 


"gives  us  an  awful  glimpse  of  the  severity  of 
God's  judgments." 

15.  Various  motives  for  this  act  have  been 
conjectured — e.  g.,  (1)  gratitude  to  Christ, 
whom  he  would  have  the  rulers  know  and 
honor;  (2)  desire  to  assert  the  authority 
under  which  he  had  acted  in  bearing  his 
couch  on  the  Sabbath ;  (3)  deference  to  the 
rulers  who  had  asked  him  to  point  out  the 
man  who  told  him  to  bear  his  couch  ;  (4)  fear 
of  the  rulers,  whose  malice  against  Jesus  he 
was  too  dull  to  perceive.  It  seems  to  us  that 
both  his  quickness  of  perception  and  manli- 
ness of  character  had  suffered  with  his  body. 
He  reminds  us  of  "  Mr.  Feeblemind,"  in  the 
allegory  of  Bunyan.  When  told  that  it  was 
unlawful  for  him  to  carry  his  bed  on  the 
Sabbath,  he  put  the  responsibility  of  the  act 
on  his  restorer,  but  without  distinctly  saying 
that  one  who  could  thus  heal  mu.st  be  from 
God.  When  the  Jews  wished  to  know  who 
had  said  to  him,  Take  up  and  walk,  he  but 
half  perceived  their  malice;  and  when  he 
had  learned  the  name  of  his  benefactor,  re- 
ported it  forthwith  to  them.  Not  a  word  of 
faith  or  courage  falls  from  his  lips.  Thus  a 
singular  self-consistency  characterizes  the 
bearing  of  the  infirm  man  throughout ;  a  self- 
consistency  so  unobtrusive  in  its  character, 
and  simple  in  its  manifestation  as  to  prove  it 
undesigned,  and  the  narrative  itself  truthful. 

16.  And  therefore  did  the  Jews  perse- 
cute Jesus,  and  sought  to  slay  him.  The 
latter  clause  of  the  received  text  is  rejected 
\>y  the  best  editors.  According  to  John,  they 
persecuted  Jesus,  because  he  had  done 
these  things  on  the  sabbath.  By  the 
Jews  must  be  understood  the  leaders  of  the 
nation,  and  especially  the  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin  (see  ver.  10),  and  by  the  expression, 
did  persecute  (lit.,  were  persecuting,  iSCmKov), 
their  persistent  effort  to  malign  his  character, 
destroy   his   influence,  and   imperil  his  life. 


134 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  V. 


17  But  Jesus  answered  them,  "My  Father  worketh 
hitherto,  aud  1  work. 

18  Therefore  the  Jews  ''sought  the  more  to  kill  him, 
because  he  not  only  had  broken  the  sabbath,  but  said 
also  that  God  was  his  Father,  <:  making  himself  equal 
with  God. 


17  sabbath.      But   Jesus   answered    them.  My    Father 

18  worketh  even  until  now,  aud  I  work.  For  this 
cause  therefore  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill 
him,  because  he  not  only  brake  the  sabbath,  but 
also  called  God  his  own  Father,  making  himself 
equal  with  God. 


ach.  9:4;  14:  10.... 6  ch.  7  ;  ia....cch.  10:30,  33;  Phil.  2  :  6. 


"Whether  this  was  done  by  a  form  of  legal 
prosecution  ;  whetlier  Jesus  was  brought  be- 
fore the  Sanliedrin,  or  any  smaller  court,  and 
required  to  answer  to  the  charge  of  Sabbath- 
breaking,  does  not  appear.  But  the  original 
word  is  not  often  used  in  the  New  Testament 
of  a  legal  prosecution.  It  is  almost  always 
fairly  represented  by  the  word  jyerseciited. 

The  last  clause  seems  to  describe  the  action 
of  Jesus  as  it  was  represented  by  his  per.^e- 
cutors.  His  healing  the  intinn  man,  and 
commanding  him  to  bear  his  couch,  are  made 
separate  otieiices  (these  things),  and  wiiat 
he  had  done  in  a  single  instance  is  repre- 
sented as  going  on  still,  as  if  it  were  habitual — 
(had  done=''  was  doing").  Less  probable  is 
the  assumption  that  the  miracle  related  was 
oue  of  u  series,  the  rest  of  which  are  not  dis 
tinctly  mentioned.    (See  the  following  verse.) 

17,  18.  Jesus  Justifies  His  Action, 
AND  Provokes  the  Jews  by  Claiming 
TO  BE  the  Son  of  God. 

17.  But  Jesus  answered  them.  The 
word  answered  is  best  accounted  for  in  this 
case  b3'  supposing  that  the  last  clause  of  ver. 
16  represents  the  accusation  of  "the  Jews." 
To  this  accusation,  which  charged  him  with 
breaking  the  Sabbath  on  principle,  he  re- 
plies: My  Father  worketh  hitherto  (=--nn- 
iil  now),  and  I  Avork.  By  this  remarkable 
language  Jesus  represents,  or  implies,  (1)  that 
God  is  his  Father,  in  a  true  and  real  sense 
of  the  expression;  (2)  that  his  Father  is  dis- 
tinguishable, in  a  personal  respect,  from  him- 
self; (3)  that  his  Father,  though  resting  from 
creation,  has  been  working  in  that  rest  until 
now;  (4)  that  he,  as  Son,  is  working  in  the 
same  way,  and  to  the  same  end,  on  a  human 
Sabbath,  which  is  but  a  shadow  of  the  Sab- 
bath-rest of  God;  and  (5)  that  his  Father's 
action  is  therefore  the  model  and  justification 
of  his  own  action.  This  saying  of  Jesus 
appears  to  assume  that  the  seventh  day,  or 
God's  rest  (Gen.2:2,  a),  is  the  period  which 
succeeded  the  creation  of  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,  and  which  is  not  yet  completed. 
Whether  this  assumption  of  Christ  has  any 


bearing  upon  the  length  of  the  six  days  of 
creation,  need  not  be  discussed;  it  certainly 
has  some  bearing  upon  the  manner  in  which 
the  Sabbath  ought  to  have  been  kept  by  the 
Jews;  it  proves  that  the  rest  of  the  Sabbath 
was  not  intended  to  be  inaction — was  not 
meant  to  interfere  with  moral  and  religious 
etibrt,  or  with   works  of  mercy. 

18.  This  answer  of  Jesus  increased  the  en- 
mity of  "the  Jews,"  so  that  the  Evangelist 
could  say  of  theui,  tliat  tliey  sought  or  (were 
!  seeking)  the  more  to  kill  him.  And  it  is 
noticeable  that  this  statement  assumes  the 
deadly  aim  of  the  persecution  mentioned  in 
ver.  16,  though  greater  bitterness  and,  per- 
haps, openness  (Lange)  were  put  into  it  in 
consequence  of  the  answer  preserved  in  ver. 
17.  For  they  interpreted  that  answer  as  an 
assertion  by  Jesus  that  God  was  his  {own) 
Father.  Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  they  misunderstood  or  perverted 
his  meaning.  Says  John  Owen:  "There  is 
not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  Jesus  did 
here  claim,  and  intended  to  claim,  absolute 
equality  with  the  Fatlier."  Alford  remarks: 
"The  Jews  understood  his  words  to  mean 
nothing  short  of  &  peculiar  2iersonal  Sonship, 
and  thus  equality  of  nature  with  God.  And 
that  their  understanding  was  the  i-ight  one, 
the  discourse  testifies."  The  same  is  Mej'er's 
I  view:  "They  interpreted  the  expression,  'my 
[  Father,'  correctly,  of  a  peculiar  Fatherhood 
i  not  true  of  God  in  relation  to  others."  The 
I  last  clause :  making  himself  equal  with 
God,  has  been  interpreted  in  three  ways,  as 
though  it  were  (a)  inferential,  (6)  causal,  (c) 
co-ordinate,  (a)  It  is  said  to  be  an  inference 
of  the  Jews  from  the  claim  of  proper  Sonship 
to  the  claim  of  equality  in  nature.  "Since 
this  Jesus  claims  to  be  Hie  own  Son  of  God, 
he  claims  to  be  equal  in  nature  with  God ; 
which  is  blasphemy."  (b)  It  is  said  to  be  a 
justification  of  their  view  of  his  words,  my 
Father,  as  being  an  assertion  that  God  was 
his  own  Father.  By  saying,  "my  Father," 
he  must  have  meant  that  God  was  his  own 
Father  {narepa  iStofj,  for  he  made  himself  equal 


Ch.  v.] 


JOHN. 


135 


19  Then  answered  Jesus  and  said  unto  them,  Veiily, 
Terily,  I  say  unto  you,  «  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do:  for  wliat 
things  soever  he  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  like- 
wise. 

20  For  *the  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  sheweth  him 
all  things  that  himself  doeth:  and  he  will  shew  him 
greater  works  thaa  these,  that  ye  may  marvel. 


19  Jesus  therefore  answered  and  said  unto  them, 
Verily,  verily,  I   say    unto  you,  The  Son  can  do 

nothing  of  himself,  but  what' he  seeth  the  Father 
doing:   for  what  things  soever  he  doeth,  these  the 

20  Son  also  doeth  in  like  manner.  For  the  Father  lov- 
eth the  Son,  and  sheweth  him  all  things  tliat  him- 
self doeth:   and  greater  works  than  these   will  he 


aver.  30;  ch.  8:28;  9:4;   12:  40;   U:  10 &  Matt.  :< :  17  ;  ch.  3:35;  2  Pet.  1 :  17. 


with  God  when  lie  added:  "and  I  work." 
(c)  It  is  said  to  be  co-ordinate  with  what  is 
before  affirmed  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God. 
"Along  with  that  which  Jesus  says  of  God's 
relation  to  hini,  is  stated  also  what  he  makes 
out  of  himself  in  his  relation  to  God."  This 
is  Meyer's  view  ;  and  he  would  translate  the 
clause:  While  he  2)laces  himself  on  the  same 
level  with  God — i.  «.,  as  to  freedom  of  action. 
The  first  of  these  interpretations  appears  to 
be  correct.  It  is  certainly  more  obvious  than 
either  of  the  others,  and  therefore  more  likely 
to  be  correct,  unless  there  is  something  in  the 
context,  or  in  the  thought,  which  forbids  us 
to  adopt  it. 

19-30.  Office,  or  Work  of  the  Son. 

19,  In  consequence  {ovv)  of  this  accusation, 
which  was  their  pretext  for  seeking  his  life, 
Jesus  answers  for  himself  (in-eicptVaTo,  middle 
voice),  in  a  discourse  of  extraordinary  depth 
and  power.  His  prime  object  is  to  convince 
his  foes,  if  they  will  suffer  themselves  to  be 
convinced,  that  his  action  has  been  in  har- 
mony with  the  will  of  God.  In  doing  this, 
he  is  not  called  upon  to  emphasize  his  per- 
si)nal  distinction  from  the  Father  (for  that  was 
admitted  by  his  accusers),  or  to  insist  directly 
on  his  equality  with  the  Father  (for  to  do  that 
would  be  to  C(Mifirm  their  impression  that  he 
was  a  blasphemer),  but  rather,  without  deny- 
ing either  of  these,  to  convince  them,  if  possi- 
ble, of  his  absolute  unity  with  the  Father  in 
action.  Hence  he  begins  by  saying:  The  Son 
can  do  nothing  of  himself.  Such  is  the 
union  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  that  it 
is  impossible  for  anv  act  of  the  Son  to  spring 
from  self,  from  his  own  will,  irrespective  of 
the  Father's  will.  But  this  inability  was  a 
glory  and  perfection,  and  the  Jews  must  have 
felt  that  Jesus  could  not  have  affirmed  in 
stronger  language  his  union  with  the  Father, 
or  the  Father's  approbation  of  what  he  had 
done.  Yet  he  does  not  deny  that  this  act  of 
liealing  the  impotent  man  was  performed  bj' 
himself;  he  does  not  say  that  no  act  can 
spring  from  the  Son's  will  as  the  iinmediate 


and  efficient  cause,  but  only  that  the  Son  can 
do  nothing  from  self  as  the  spring  and  motive 
of   action— nothing    but   what    he  seeth   the 
Father  do.     Meyer  says:   '' But  what  (iaf  ij.^  n) 
refers  to  do  nothing  (iroielv  oiiSiu)  merely,  and 
not  also  to  frotn  himself  {a.<t>'  iavroi),"  appeal- 
ing to  Matt.  12:  4  and  Gal.  2:  1«.     Our  inter- 
pretation agrees  with  his.     But  these  jiassages 
only  show  that  his  interpretation  is  possible; 
they  do  not  establish  it.     If  anything  does 
that,  it   must   be  the  connection  of  thought 
here,  and  the  exact  sense  of  the  words  from 
himself  {i<t>'  Uvtov).     We  understand  Christ  to 
affirm  that  (see  14)  only  what  is  divine  can  be 
done  by  himself.     The  Son  of  God  can  per- 
form no  act  which  differs  in  character  from 
the  action   of  the   Father.     If   he   performs 
works  of  mercy   on  the  Sabbath,  it  is  only 
what  he  sees  the  Father  doing  on  that  day. 
God's  action   is   the   pattern   for   his   action. 
This  is  now  positively  affirined.     For  what 
things  soever  he  doeth,  these  also  doeth 
the  Son  likewise  (in  like  m,anner).     Alford 
remarks:    "For  it  is  the  very  nature  of  the 
Son  to  do  whatever  the  Father  doeth.     Also, 
to  do  these  works  after  the  same  plan  and 
proceeding  (d^xoiuis),  so  that  there   can  be  no 
discord,   but  unity."     And  SchafF  says  that 
this  "  points  to  the  equality  of  the  Son  with 
the  Father.     The  Son  does  the  same   things 
with  the  same  power  and  in  the  same  man- 
ner."    "In  this  word,"  writes  Godet,   "one 
knows    not   which    is   more   astounding,    the 
naivet^  of  the  form  or  the  sublimity  of  the 
idea.     Jesus  speaks  of  this  intimate  relation 
with  the  Being  of  beings,  as  if  he  were  treat- 
ing of  the  simplest  thing  in  the  world.     It  is 
the  word  of  the  child  of  twelve  years:   'Wot 
ye  not  that  I   must  be  about  my   Father's 
business?'  raised  to  the  highest  power." 

20.  Two  facts  have  been  stated:  first,  that 
in  a  true  and  deep  sense  the  Son  is  unable  to 
do  anything  save  what  he  sees  the  Father 
doing,  and  second,  that  he  does  whatever  the 
Father  does.  But  the  latter  statement  sup- 
poses   that   he  sees    all    that   the    Father    is 


136 

J 

ro] 

El 

f. 

[Ch. 

V. 

21  For  as 
eneth  them 
will. 

the  Father 
•  "even  so 

raiseth  up  the  dead,  and  qiilck- 
tbe  Sou  quickeiieth  whom   he 

21 

shew  hira,  that  ye  may  marvel, 
raiseth  the  dead  and  quickeneth 

For  as  the  Father 
them,  even  so  tlie 

a  Luke  7:  14 

8: 

54; 

ch.  11 

■lb,  43 

doing,  and  this  stivtement  he  now  explains 
and  justifies.  For  the  Father  loveth  the 
Son.  The  word  here  transUited  loveth  {<j>iKfl) 
denotes  tender,  personal  affection.  And 
shevvethhim  all  things  that  himself 
doeth.  While  these  words  presii])pose  a  per- 
sonal distinction  between  the  Fatlier  and  the 
Son,  and  assign  a  logical  precedence  to  the 
action  of  the  Father,  tliey  claim  for  the  Son  a 
perfect  "knowledge"  of  the  Father's  action. 
And  by  the  Son,  Jesus  Christ  must  have 
meant  himself,  the  Incarnate  Word.  (See  1 : 
18,51;  3:13;  5:27).  This  iiiterir.-etation  may 
require  us  to  restrict  the  expression  all  things 
to  such  as  were  connected  with  the  worlc  of 
redemption,  because  the  human  faculties  of 
Christ  jiut  limits  to  his  strictly  thenntkropic 
knowledge,  though  not  perhaps  to  the  knowl- 
edge which  he  was  conscious  of  having  in  the 
faculties  of  his  divine  nature,  and  certainly 
not  to  that  which  was  needed  at  any  mo- 
ment for  the  Messianic  woriv  committed  to 
him.  And  he  will  shew  him  greater 
works  than  these.  Does  this  mean  that  the 
Father  will  show  greater  works  to  the  Son  by 
doing  them  first  himself,  that  the  Son  may 
do  them  afterward?  Or  is  the  doing  of  them 
by  the  Father  subjective  and  synonymous 
with  willing?  So  that  the  works  are  to  be 
performed  by  the  Son  according  to  the  will 
of  the  Father?  (See  ver.  20,  2i3).  The  latter 
view  agrees  with  the  various  representations 
of  the  Bible  concerning  the  creation — (com- 
pare John  1:3;  Heb.  1:2;  Col.  1 :  16  sq.  with 
1  Cor  8:6;  Heb.  2:  10;  Acts  4:  24).  "With 
the  Father,"  says  Alford,  ''^  doing  is  willing ; 
it  is  only  the  Son  who  acts  in  time."  Jesus 
here  represents  the  Father  as  taking  the  initi- 
ative in  the  works  performed  by  the  Son,  but 
it  is  not  probable  that  this  precedence  implies 
any  separate  doing  of  the  works,  so  that  they 
are  twice  performed  (comp.  John  14:  9-11). 
That  ye  may  marvel.  In  the  original,  the 
pronoun  ye  is  expressed,  and  therefore  slight- 
ly emphatic,  and  the  end  contemplated  by 
God  in  these  greater  works  is  not  faith,  but 
wonder,  on  the  part  of  those  addressed.  What 
a  portentous  warning  is  contained  in  this  say- 
ing, if  it  implies  that  merely  wonder,  and 


nothing  more,  was  contemplated  as  the  fruit 
of  such  signs  in  their  case!  But  it  is  possible 
that  Jesus  thought  of  wonder  as  a  natural  pre- 
liminary to  faith,  though  it  might  not  reach 
this  end  in  their  case;  as  if  he  had  begun  to 
Siky,  that  ye  may  wonder  and  believe,  but  was 
constrained  to  pause  with  the  first  effect,  be- 
cause it  was  all  that  he  foresaw  would  be  pro- 
duced in  the  minds  of  his  hearers,  and  all  that 
Wiis  necessary  to  condemn  their  course  and  to 
justify  the  greater  works.  But  Jesus  does 
not  say  that  tlieir  wonder  is  the  only  or  the 
principal  end  that  God  would  reach  by  the 
greater  works  predicted.  If  these  works  are 
described  in  the  following  verses,  another  rea- 
son for  their  performance  is  the  honor  which 
they  bring  to  Christ,  and  the  blessedness  of 
those  saved  by  him.  Biittman("Gr  ofN.  T. 
Greek,"  p.  239)  supposes  that  the  word  trans- 
lated that  should  be  translated  in  this  place 
"so  that." 

In  the  next  verses  («i-.J9),  Jesus  illustrates 
and  confirms  the  statement  just  made,  by  de- 
claring that  the  work  of  spiritual  and  cor- 
poreal resurrection  is  committed  to  the  Son. 

21.  For  as  the  Father  raiseth  up  the 
dead  and  quickeneth  them  (or,  maketh 
them,  alive).  This  statement  may  naturally 
be  understood  to  embrace  a  revivifying  of 
both  soul  and  body ;  the  present  tense  being 
used  because  it  is  the  Father's  work  to  do  rhis. 

(Deut.32:  .-iS;  1  Sam.  2  :  6,  Rom.  4:  17;  8:  11).      According 

to  Tholuck,  the  word  raiseth  (cV'/>e»)  points  to 
the  negative,  and  maketh  alive  (^wowoicl)  to  the 
positive  side  of  the  same  act.  According  to 
Meyer,  the  "making  alive"  is  the  principal 
thing,  and  is  represented,  in  a  popular  way, 
as  beginning  with  the  raising  up.  Per- 
haps the  thought  is  this:  "As  the  Father 
raiseth  the  dead,  and  by  so  doing  gives  them 
life."  Even  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom 
he  will.  Alford  appears  to  be  correct  in  say- 
ing that  the  words  whom  he  will  mean 
"that  in  every  instance  where  his  will  is  to 
vivify,  the  result  invariably  follows."  And 
what  greater  power,  what  power  more  strictly 
divine,  could  Jesus  have  claimed  for  himself? 
The  expression  quickeneth,  or,  maketh  alive, 
embraces  in  this  clause  also,  (against  MeyerX 


Ch.  v.] 


JOHN. 


137 


22  For  the  Father  jiulgeth  no  man,  but  "  hath  com- 
mitted all  judgniunt  unto  the  Sou  : 

23  That  all  iiifii  should  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they 
honour  the  Father.  'He  that  honoureth  not  the  Son 
hoiioureth  not  the  Father  which  hath  sent  him. 

24  Verily,  verily,  1  say  unto  you,  "He  that  heareth 
my  word,  and  helieveth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath 
everlasting  lite,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemna- 
tion; ''hut  is  passed  from  death  unto  life. 


22  Son  also  quickeneth  whom  he  will.  For  neither 
doth  the  Father  judge  any  man,  l^ul  he  hath  given 

23  all  judgment  unto  the  Sou;  that  all  nuiy  honour  the 
Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father.  He  that 
honoureth   not  the  S(m  honoureth  not  the  Father 

24  that  sent  him.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  He 
that  heareth  my  word,  and  believelh  him  that  sent 
me,  hath  eternal  life,  and  cometh  not  into  judgment 


a  Matt.  11 :  27  ;  28 :  18  ;   ver.  27  ;  ch.  3 :  35  ;   17:2; 


.1  1  Joho  2  :  23. . .  .c  ch.  3  :  16,  18  ;  6 :  40,  47 ;  8 :  5)  • 


both  spiritual  and  corporeal  quickening,   or 
resurrection. 
22.    For  the  Father  judgeth  no  man. 

(Better :  For  not  enen  the  Father  judgeth  any 
ftian).  The  conjunction  for  (yap)  introduces 
tliis  statement  as  a  reason  for  the  foregoing, 
viz.,  "quici<eneth  whom  he  will";  and  the 
adverb  "neither,"  or,  "not  even"  (oitSe),  inti- 
mates that  the  work  of  judging,  which  is 
higher  than  that  of  quickening,  is  not  to  be 
performed,  even  by  the  Father,  apart  from  the 
Son.  All  is  to  be  done  through  the  Son. 
"When  it  is  denied  that  the  Father  judges,  it 
is  done  in  the  same  way  in  which  (o:  i9;  8:  28) 
it  is  denied  that  the  Son  can  do  anything  of 
himself — to  wit:  in  isolation  from  the  Fatlier." 
— (Tholuck).  But  hath  committed  (given) 
all  [the)  judgment  unto  the  Son.  The  en- 
tire work  of  judging  mankind  is  committed 
to  the  Son,  that  is,  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  divine- 
hunlan  Mediator.  (Compare  Acts  17:  31;  2 
Cor.  5:  10;  2  Tim.  4:  1;  Matt.  25:  31-46). 

23.  {In  order)  that  all  men  should  hon- 
our the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the 
Father.  For  what  end  does  the  Father  give 
to  Jesus  the  two  supreme  attributes  of  Deity, 
vivifying  and  judging?  He  desires  to  have 
tfie  adoration  which  humanity  pays  to  himself 
rendered  also  to  the  Son.  The  Father  loveth 
the  Son  (s:  35),  and  therefore  wishes  to  see  the 
world  at  the  feet  of  the  Son,  as  at  his  own  feet. 
The  word  honour  (Ti/naf)  does  not,  indeed, 
directly  express  the  act  of  worship  (npoa-Kwelv). 
But  in  the  context  it  evidently  expresses  that 
feeling  of  religious  veneration  of  which. wor- 
ship is  the  expression.  And  by  boldly  claiin- 
ing  for  his  own  person  this  feeling,  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  it  is  due  to  the  Father  (icawo)?), 
Jesus  certainly  authorizes  inen  to  render  to 
him  worship  properly  so  called.  Compare  20: 
28;  Phil.  2:  10— (Godet).  He  that  honour- 
eth not  the  Son,  honoureth  not  the  Fa- 
ther which  hath  sent  him.  Significant 
words,  as  addressed  to  men  who  were  seeking 
the  life  of  Jesus!     it  would  have  been  much 


to  say,  that  persecution  of  the  Son  must  be 
displeasing  to  the  Father  who  had  sent  him 
(Malt.  21: 37  sq.) ;  but  it  was  more  to  say  to  men 
who  prided  themselves  on  being  special  assert- 
ers  of  God's  honor,  that  they  could  not  honor 
the  Father  unless  they  honored  the  Son  who 
was  now  addressing  them,  and,  indeed  (see 
the  previous  clause),  unless  they  honored  him 
even  as  they  honored  the  Father.  For  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  Jesus  was  really  speak- 
ing of  himself,  the  God-man,  and  saying, 
"The  Son  represents  and  reveals  the  Father; 
therefore,  to  withhold  divine  honor  from  him 
is  to  withhold  it  from  the  Father."  "As 
Christ  claims  precisely  the  same  honor  as  is. 
due  to  the  Father  (/caSibs),  he  puts  himself 
on  such  a  footing  of  equality  with  him  as 
implies  unity  of  essence;  since  Monotheism 
is  very  jealous  of  the  honor  of  Jehovah,  as 
the  only  being  entitled  to  the  worship  of  the 
creature.  There  can  be  no  two  rival  Gods."  — 
(Schaff).  (On  the  negative  particles  in  this 
verse,  compare  Winer  ^59,  1.) 

24.  He  that  heareth  my  word,  and  be- 
lieveth  on  him  that  sent  me.  The  word 
heareth,  in  the  first  clause,  may,  perhaps,  as 
Meyer  says,  have  its  simplest  meaning,  that 
of  mere  hearing;  while  the  next  clause  reveals 
the  action  consequent  upon  this  hearing.  But 
it  is  more  natural  to  understand  the  word,  as 
it  is  often  used,  in  the  deeper  sense  of  heark- 
ening to,  by  which  the  mind  is  prepared  for 
the  next  term,  believing  on.  And  the  belief 
which  is  here  described  is  belief  in  God  as  the 
One  who  sent  Jesus  Christ,  his  Son,  into  the 
world.  The  verb  to  believe  (n-to-rcvetv),  with 
the  following  dative,  expresses  the  "belief  in 
the  testimony  of  God,  that  he  hath  sent  his 
Son,  which  is  dwelt  on  so  much,  (i  John  a :  9-12)." 
— (Alford).  SeeButtman's  "  Grammar  of  the 
N^.  T.  Greek,"  p.  173  sq.  Hath  everlasting 
life.  Faith  is  at  once  the  condition  and  the 
beginning  of  eternal  life.  By  it,  the  soul  en- 
joys that  blessed  union  with  God  for  which  it 
was  originally  designed.     And  the  possession 


138 


JOHK 


[Ch.  V. 


25  Verily,  veriiy,  I  say  unto  you,  The  hour  is  com- 
ing, and  now  is,  when  "the  deail  shall  hear  the  voice 
of  the  Sou  of  God;  and  they  that  hear  shall  live. 

26  For  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself;  so  hath 
he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself; 


25  but  hath  passed  out  of  death  into  life.  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  The  hour  coiueth,  and  now 
is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of 

26  God ;  and  they  that  hear  shall  live.  For  as  the 
Father  hath  life  in  himself,  even  so  gave  he  to  the 


o  ver.  28 :   Eph.  2:1,5;  5  :  14  ;   Col.  2  :  13. 


of  that  life  in  its  germ  is  a  pledge  of  its  pos- 
session forever.  And  shall  not  come  into 
condemnation.  Tlie  noun  translated  con- 
demnation, and  the  verb  from  which  it  is 
formed  (xpio-ts,  Kpivai),  have  this  meaning  very 
often  in  the  writings  of  John.  (See  ver.  2'.),  and 
3:  17,18).  But  is  passed  from  death  unto 
life.  Into  life  is  a  more  exact  rendering  of 
the  words.  In  the  believer,  this  transition 
has  been  already  effected.  He  is  in  the  realm 
and  possession  of  eternal  life,  instead  of  being 
still,  as  before,  in  the  realm  and  power  of  sin 
and  death.  A  marvelous  change  !  The  defi- 
nite article  before  the  word  life,  in  the  Greek 
text,  might  be  represented  by  the  word  "  this  " 
in  English  ;  for  it  shows  that  the  life  referred 
to  is  the  "everlasting  life"  just  mentioned. 
Observe  how  clearly  this  language  proves  that 
life,  as  this  term  is  used  by  Christ,  is  more 
than  conscious  existence,  and  death  more  than 
extinction  of  conscious  being. 

25.  Notice  (1)  the  repeated  verily,  by  which 
the  importance  of  what  follows  is  forcibly  ex- 
pressed (compare  also  ver.  24).  (2)  The  an- 
nouncement of  a  new  religious  period  that 
had  even  now  begun.  The  (or,  a7i)  hour  is 
coming  and  now  is.  Jesus  tells  "the  Jews" 
very  plainly  that  a  revolution  has  been  com- 
menced, and  that  it  will  go  on.  (3)  Men,  in 
their  natural  condition,  are,  in  a  tnost  import- 
ant sense,  dead ;  for  they  are  destitute  of  the 
only  true  and  blessed  life.  (See  ver.  21,  and 
Matt.  8:  22).  (4)  What  they  are  said  to  hear 
is,  therefore,  not  the  "wo7'rf"  (Ter.  24)  of  instruc- 
tion, but  the  voice  of  authority,  even  the  voice 
of  him  who  is  here  called  the  Son  of  God, 
to  indicate  the  divine  authority  and  efficiency 
of  his  word.  (5)  The  expression,  they  that 
hear  (or,  heard,  oi  oxouo-ai'Tes)  shall  live,  still 
retains  the  figure  of  a  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
and,  therefore,  directs  attention  to  the  first  act 
of  hearing,  as  that  on  which  the  origin  and 
existence  of  the  new  life  depend.  Otherwise, 
the  present  participle  might  have  been  used 
in  the  Greek,  and  not  the  aorist.  (See  1 :  12). 
(6)  Meyer  supposes  that  the  word  hear,  in 
the  expression  they  that  hear,  means  "give 
ear  to."     All  the  dead  "hear  the  voice,"  but 


all  do  not  "give  ear"  to  it;  those  who  do,  will 
live.  There  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  ground 
for  this  distinction  ;  and  it  does  not  agree  very 
well  with  the  figure  of  a  resurrection  of  the 
dead  carried  through  the  verse.  According 
to  the  best  authorities,  the  Greek  words  trans- 
lated "shall  hear"  and  "shall  live,"  are  in 
the  active  voice,  and  not  (as  in  the  textus  re- 
ceptus)  in  the  middle. 

26.  This  verse  assigns  a  reason  (yap)  f(jr 
what  has  just  been  said,  viz.  :  Those  who  hear 
the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God  will  live,  because, 
in  accordance  with  the  Father's  will  and  ac- 
tion, the  Son  is  the  Giver  of  life  and  the  Judge 
of  all.  For  as  the  Father  hath  life  in 
himself.  To  have  life  in  one's  self,  is  to  have 
it  as  an  independent  possession,  and  as  a  foun- 
tain of  life  for  others.  The  former  idea  is 
contained  in  the  expression  itself,  and  the  lat- 
ter is  illustrated  by  the  use  of  the  expression 
by  John. — So  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to 
have  life  in  himself.  So  gave  he,  also,  etc., 
reproduces  more  exactly  the  tense  of  the 
Greek.  According  to  the  best  editors  of  the 
Greek  text,  the  order  of  words  in  this  clause 
renders  the  expression,  the  Son,  emphatic, 
while,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  thing 
predicated,  viz.  :  having  life  in  himself,  is 
also  emphatic  in  both  clauses.  The  Son,  as 
well  as  the  Father,  has  life  as  an  independent 
possession,  from  which  he  can  impart  life  to 
others.  (Compare  11:  25;  14:  6-19).  But  he 
has  it  by  gift  from  the  Father.  When  and 
how  did  he  receive  it?  In  eternity,  and  by 
an  eternal  act  of  self-communication  to  the 
Word?  We  think  not;  but  at  the  time  when 
the  Word  became  flesh  (i:  u:  Lukei:  .-io),  and  by 
means  of  the  incarnation.  Jesus  Christ  had 
life  in  himself,  and  was  a  source  of  life  to 
men,  because  he  had,  in  his  theanthropic  per- 
son, "the  Word"  that  "was  God,"  "that 
eternal  Life  which  was  with  the  Father." 
(joiini:  1;  iJohn  1:  2).  For,  by  the  term  Son, 
here,  as  in  the  previous  context,  Jesus  means 
himself,  as  he  stands  before  the  wrathful  j-et 
over-awed  Jews.  He  is  vindicating  his  own 
authority  and  action,  by  connecting  them  in- 
separably with  the  Father's  will  and  action. 


Ch.  v.] 


JOHN. 


139 


27  And  "  hath  given  him  autliority  to  execute  judg- 
ment also,  '  Ix'cause  lie  is  the  Son  of  man. 

28  JIarvi'l  not  at  this:  for  the  hour  is  coming,  in  the 
which  all  that  are  iu  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice, 

29 ''And  sliall  come  forth;  ''they  that  have  done 
good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life;  and  they  that  have 
done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation. 

30  «I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing;  as  I  hear,  I 
judge:  and  my  judgment  is  just;  because/I  seek  not 
mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father  which  hath 
sent  uie. 


27  Son  also  to  have  life  in  himself:  and  he  gave  him 
authority  to  execute  judgment,  because  he  is  a  son 

28  of  num.  Marvel  not  at  this:  for  the  hour  cometh, 
in   which  all  that   are  in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his 

29  voice,  and  shall  come  forth;  they  that  have  done 
good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life;  and  tliey  that 
nave  '  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  juilguienf. 

30  I  can  of  myself  do  nothing:  as  I  liear,  I  judge: 
and  my  judgment  is  righteous;  because  I  seek  not 


ver.  22;   Acts  10;  42:   1T:31....6   Dan 


U c  Isa.  2fi:  19; 

./  Matt.  -21) :  :«  ;  oh. 


I  Cor.  15:  52; 
4:  34;  6:  38.- 


1  Thess.  4  :  16. . .  .<*  Dan.  12  :  2  ;  Matt.  25  :  32,  33.  46. 
— 1  Or.  practised. 


And  he  was  not,  as  he  stood  before  the  Jews, 
simply  the  Eternal  Word,  but,  rather,  the 
God-mfin. 

27.  And  hath  given  (gave)  him  authority 
to  execute  judgment  also,  because  he  is 
the  (or,  a)  Son  of  man.  He  who  is  the  Son 
of  God,  by  virtue  of  his  divine  nature,  is,  at 
the  same  time,  Son  of  man,  by  virtue  of  his 
human  nature.  He  is,  therefore,  qualified  to 
be  the  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man 
(iTim.  2:  5),  representing  both.  Hence,  the  Fa- 
ther performs  the  whole  work  of  redemption 
and  judgment  by  him.  Hence,  too,  in  a  cer- 
tain sense,  humanitj^  judges  itself  by  the  con- 
demnation which  Jesus  pronounces  upon  the 
unbelieving.  The  fact  that  he  is  a  veritable 
Son  of  man,  able  to  share  the  interests,  appre- 
ciate the  trials,  and  sympathize  with  the  woes 
of  mankind,  is  here  a.ssigned  as  a  reason  why 
the  work  of  judgment  is  committed  to  him. 
No  true  man  has  a  tenderer  heart  than  he,  and 
those  whom  he  condemns,  all  good  men  will 
condemn  likewise,  in  the  light  of  the  final 
day.  (See  1  Cor.  6:  2).  Observe  that  Jesus 
refers  to  himself,  in  this  passage,  as  Son  of 
man  or  a  Son  of  man  {via-:  av^pi^irov),  and  not 
as  the  Son  of  mtm  (o  uibs  toO  aviptoTtov) ;  for  the 
object  of  the  clause  is  to  assert  his  true  hu- 
manity, the  fact  that  he  was  a  born  man,  and 
not  his  Messianic  dignity  among  men.  That 
is  asserted  in  the  preceding  statement. 

28,  29.  3IarveI  not  at  this,  viz.  :  at  what 
I  have  said  of  my  work  in  vivifying  and  judg- 
ing mankind;  for — the  greatest  and  last  sta- 
dium of  this  work  is  yet  in  the  future — the 
(or,  an)  hour  is  coming,  in  (omit  the)  which 
all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his 
voice,  and  shall  come  forth.  (Compare  Acts 
24:  15;  Dan.  12:  2;  1  Thess.  4:  16;  1  Cor.  15: 
52).  This  language  must  refer  to  a  bodily 
rather  than  to  a  spiritual  resurrection,  (1)  be- 
cause those  who  are  to  be  raised  are  said  to  be 
in  their  graves,  a  form  of  statement  which 
is  not  elsewhere   applied  to  those   who   are 


spirituallj'  dead  ;  (2)  because  all  that  are  in 
their  graves  are  to  be  raised,  while  the  good 
have  spiritual  life  already,  and  the  bad  are 
only  raised  to  be  judged;  (3)  because  this 
resurrection  is  assigned  to  the  future,  with  no 
hint,  like  that  in  ver.  25,  of  its  occurrence  now. 
Hence,  the  language  of  Jesus  agrees  with  that 
of  Paul  in  tlie  passages  referred  to  above. 
They  that  have  done  (or  those  who  did  the) 
I  good  unto  the  (or,  a)  resurrection  of  life, 
I  and  they  that  have  done  (or,  those  who 
ivrought  the)  evil  unto  the  (or,  n)  resurrec- 
tion of  damnation  (?'.  e.,  condemnntio7i).  The 
expressions,  did  the  good,  and  wrought  the  evil, 
point  to  actions  completed  in  the  past,  and, 
doubtless,  to  what  Paul  characterizes  as  "the 
deeds  done  in  his  body."  (2Cor.  5:io).  Hence, 
thej^  are  unfavorable  to  the  notion  that  the 
conduct  of  men  after  death  will  determine 
their  relation  to  Christ  and  the  resurrection. 
A  resurrection  of  life  is  a  resurrection  which 
brings  perfect  life,  or  eternal  and  blessed  fel- 
lowship with  God;  while  a  resurrection  of 
condemnntion  is  one  which  involves  final  con- 
demnation and  woe.  AVhether  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  two  classes  here  mentioned  will 
take  place  at  the  same  time,  or  at  different 
times,  is  not  made  perfectly  certain  by  this 
language;  but  if  there  is  nothing  elsewhere  in 
the  New  Testament  inconsistent  with  the  view 
that  the  resurrection  of  both  will  be  at  the 
same  time,  this  is,  certainly,  the  most  obvious 
interpretation  of  the  language  here  used. 
"The  definite  article  before  the  words  good 
ana  e>rii. gives  to  these  terms,  in  tUe  original, 
an  absolute  sense." — Godet. 

Jesus  has  thus  asserted  most  clearly  what 
he  is  doing,  and  what  he  will  do.  He  now 
returns  to  the  thought  and  assertion  of  his  in- 
separable unity  with  the  Father  in  all  his 
work. 

30.  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing. 
"No  act  of  mine  can  spring  from  self.  To 
do  anj-thing  against  or  without  the  Father's 


140 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  V. 


31  "If  I  bear  witness  of  myself,  my  wituess  is  not 
true. 

32  'There  is  and  her  that  beareth  witness  of  me; 
and  I  know  that  the  wituess  which  he  witnesselh  of 
me  is  true. 

33  Ye  sent  unto  John,  "and  he  bare  witness  unto  the 
truth. 

34  But  I  receive  not  testimony  from  man:  but  these 
things  I  say,  that  ye  might  be  saved. 


31  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me.     If 

32  I  bear  witness  of  myself,  my  witness  is  not  true.  It 
is  another  that  beareth  witness  of  me;  and  I  know 
that  the  witness  which  he  witnesseth  of  me  is  true. 

33  Ye  have  sent  unto  John,  and  he  hath  borne  witness 

34  unto  the  truth.  But  the  witness  which  I  receive  is 
not  from  man:   howbeit  I  say  these  things,  that  ye 


a  Seech.  8:  14;  Rey.  3:  14 6  Matt.  3:  17  ;  17  :  5  ;  ch.  8:  18;  IJohn  5:  6,  7  9 c  ch.  1:  15,  19,  27.32. 


will  is  contradictory  to  my  very  nature.  It 
is  the  deepest  law  of  my  being  and  the 
supreme  end  of  my  life  to  reveal  the  Father 
and  his  will."  (Comp.  ver.  19).  As  I  hear, 
I  judge.  By  this  expression  Jesus  reminds 
the  Jews  that  he  is  even  now  acting  as  judge, 
and  passing  sentence  of  condemnation  on 
tlio.se  who  reject  his  word.  And  this  sentence 
involves  and  expresses  the  judgment  of 
another,  even  God.  Observe  how  the  word 
hear  in  this  verse  takes  the  place  of  "see" 
in  ver.  19;  for  in  this  place  he  is  speaking  of 
a  sentence  pronounced;  in  that,  of  miracles 
wrouglit;  in  this,  hearing  represents  imme- 
diate knowledge  of  the  Father's  will;  in  that, 
seeing  represents  the  same  kind  of  knowledge. 
Observe  also  that  this  expression  assumes  on 
the  part  of  Jesus  direct  and  uninterrupted 
converse  with  the  Father.  And  my  judg- 
ment is  just.  The  Greek  expression  trans- 
lated my  judgment  (^  icp.o-is  17  tfiJj),  has  a  cer- 
tain fullness  and  force  which  miglit  naturally 
strike  "the  Jews"  as  a  reflection  upon  their 
manner  of  judging.  Because  I  seek  not 
mine  own  will.  Nothing  is  surer  to  jiervert 
judgment  than  selfish  ends  in  the  judge. 
"When  his  own  will  comes  in,  equity  goes  out. 
One  reas<»n  why  God  cannot  be  unjust  is 
because  he  is  self-suflicient  and  needs  the  ser- 
vice of  no  one.  Jesus  Christ,  through  his 
perfect  communion  with  God,  was  absolutely 
above  the  influence  of  human  fear  or  favor. 
But  the  will  of  the  Father  which  hath 
sent  me.  "My  judgment,  because  not  in- 
dividual, but  divine,  mu.tt  be  righteous." 
— (Meyer).  To  seek  what  God  seeks,  to  do  his 
will,  is  always  right.  The  word  "Father"  is 
omitted  by  tlie  best  editors. 

31-47.  Confirmation  of  His  Claims. 

31.  If  I  bear  witness  of  myself,  my 
witness  is  not  true.  An  almost  startling 
concession,  which  is,  however,  at  the  same 
time  the  strongest  possible  implied  affirma- 
tion of  his  inseparable  unity  in  action  with 
the  Father.     For  the  pronoun  I  (eyul),  being 


emphatic,  appears  to  mean,  "I  alone,"  or  I 
in  separation  from  the  Father.  "If  such  a 
separation,  and  independent  testimony,  as  is 
here  supposed,  could  take  place,  it  would  be  a 
falsification  of  the  very  conditions  of  the  truth 
of  God  as  manifested  by  the  Son,  who  being 
the  Logos  speaks,  not  of  himself,  but  of  the 
Father." — (Alford).  Properly  understood, 
therefore,  this  passage  is  not  inconsistent  with 
John  8:  13-16. 

33.  There  is  another  that  beareth  wit- 
ness of  me.  The  word  another  (5aAos) 
means,  without  doubt,  the  Father,  and  is 
a  clear  recognition  of  personal  distinction 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Indeed, 
such  a  distinction  is  assumed  in  every  part  of 
this  wonderful  apology,  and  without  it  the 
language  of  Jesus  in  this  particular  verse,  as 
contrasted  with  the  preceding  verse,  would 
be,  not  only  inexplicable,  but  certain  to  mis- 
lead. Some  have  thought  that  the  word 
another  points  to  John  the  Baptist;  but  this 
is  rendered  improbable  by  the  whole  context, 
before  and  after.  And  I  know  that  the 
witness  which  he  witnesseth  of  me  is 
true.  (Comparre  7:  28,  29;  8:  26-55).  The 
reading,  "ye  know,"  adopted  by  Tischen- 
dorf,  is  not  as  well  supported  as  the  common 
text,  nor  does  it  agree  as  well  with  the  tone  of 
this  discourse. 

33-34.  Ye  (have)  sent  unto  John— as  re- 
corded by  the  Evangelist  in  1 :  19  sq.  And 
he  bare  (or  hath  borne)  witness  to  the 
truth.  Jesus  does  not  undervalue  the  fidelity 
of  John,  or  his  knowledge  of  "the  truth." 
But  I  receive  not  testimony  from  man — 
i.  e.,  the  testimony  of  which  I  speak  —  the 
testimony  of  another.  But  these  things  I 
say  that  ye  might  (or  may)  be  saved. 
"Not  for  7ny  benefit,  for  I  do  not  need  this 
human  testimony,  having  a  divine  one,  which 
is  all  sufficient,  but  for  your  salvation," 
(SchaflT),  do  j  refer  to  the  testimony  of  John. 
To  you  it  should  be  valid,  though  it  be  need- 
less to  me. 


Ch.  v.] 


JOHN. 


141 


35  He  was  a  burning  and  «  a  shining  light:  and  *ye 
were  willing  for  a  season  to  rejoice  in  nis  light. 

3()  But  <=  I  have  greater  witness  than  Ihnl.  of  John  : 
for  ''Ihc  works  wliich  the  Father  hath  given  uie  to 
finish,  the  same  works  that  1  do,  bear  witness  of  me, 
that  Ihe  Father  hath  sent  me. 

'Al  And  the  Father  himself,  which  hath  sent  me, 
«hath  borne  witness  of  me.  Ye  have  neither  lieard 
his  voice  at  any  time, /nor  seen  his  shape. 


35  may  be  saved.  He  was  the  lamp  that  burneth  and 
shineth  :   and  ye  were  willing  to  rejoice  for  a  sea.son 

.36  in  his  light.  But  the  witness  which  I  have  is  greater 
than  Ihat  of  John:  for  the  works  which  the  Father 
liath  given  me  to  accomi)lish,  the  very  works  that  I 
do,  hear  witness  of  uie,  that  the  Father  hath  sent  me. 

37  And  the  Father  that  sent  me,  he  hath  borne  witness 
of  me.    Ye  have  neither  heard  his  voice  at  any  time. 


a  2  Pet.  1  :  19....6  See  Mate.  13  :  20  ;  21:  26,  Mark  6:  20.... c  1  John."):  9....<f  ch.  3:  2;  10:  25;  15:  24.... e  Matt.  3  :  17  ;  17:5;  oh.  6:  27; 
8:  18..../  Deut.  4:  12;  ch.  1 :  18 ;  1  Tim.  1 :  17  ;  1  John*:  12. 


35.  lie  was  a  burning  and  a  shining 
light — or,  the  lamp  that  barneth  and  shineth. 
(Rev.  Ver. )  The  article  characterizes  him  as 
tlie  definite  lamp  which,  according  to  the 
Old  Testament,  was  to  appear  and  give  a 
knowledge  of  salvation  to  the  people  (Luke 
]:76sq.).  He  is  called  the  lamp  (6  A"x>">s) 
and  not  the  light  (to  <i>a)s),  because,  as  SchafF 
remarks,  he  "was  a.  light,  but  only  in  a  sub- 

. ordinate  sense,  a  derived  light,  a  light  lighted, 
not  lighting;  and  hence  'in  his  light'  is 
spoken  of  in  the  next  clause  in  the  sense  of 
the  predicate,  not  the  noun."  "He  was  the 
lamp  that  was  burning  and  shining.  The 
English  Version  here  doubly  errs  both  in  the 
way  of  disparagement  and  of  exaltation. 
Exaltation,  because  it  elevates  to  an  original 
light  him  whom  the  Saviour  designates  as 
only  a  lamp,  shining  with  borrowed  bright- 
ness. Of  disparagement,  in  that  it  omits  the 
emphatically  repeated  article  by  which  Christ 
exalts  John  to  a  single  and  sole  conspicuous- 
ness.  He  himself  was  'the  light'  ('JohDi:4), 
the  fountain  of  all  illumination.  John  was 
but  a  'lamp,'  shining  as  being  shone  upon; 
but  still  the  lamp,  that  was  lighted  and  shin- 
ing."— (A.  C.  Kendrick,  D.  c.)  The  verb  was 
points  to  the  circumstance  that  John's  min- 
istry was  already  past;  he  was  either  dead,  or 
in  prison.  And  ye  were  Avilling  for  a 
season  (literally,  hour)  to  rejoice  in  his 
light.  At  first  and  for  a  time  all  Jeru.salem 
went  after  John.  Curiosity  led  even  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  to  go  out  into  the  wil- 
derness to  see  him.  He  was  the  novelty  of  the 
hour.  But  the  rulers  of  the  people  soon  be- 
came weary  of  his  earnest  calls  to  repentance, 
and  when  they  found  that  he  would  minister 
neither  to  their  national  pride  nor  to  their 
personal  self-righteousness,  they  turned  away 
from  him,  without  having  received  -dwy 
spiritual  benefit. 

36.  But  I  have  greater  w^itness  than 
that  of  John.     Literally  :    But  the  witness 


which  I  have  is  greater  than  ihat  of  John. 
The  word  witness  here  means  "  testimony  " 
{y-apTvpiav),  and  the  whole  is  a  compendious 
expression  for:  "But  I,  on  my  part,  have  the 
witness  (referred  to,  ver.  32)  which  is  greater 
than  that  of  John."  For  the  works  Avhich 
the  Father  hath  given  me.  These  works 
embrace  miracles,  but  do  not  exclude  other 
manifestations  of  his  divine  or  Messianic 
authority.  To  finish  (or,  that  I  should  finish 
them).  The  Greek  expression  is  fairly 
enough  represented  by  the  ordinary  English 
Version,  to  finish.  The  same  works  (or, 
the  works  themselves),  etc.  Thus  Jesus  affirms 
that  he  is  doing  the  precise  works  which  the 
Father  has  sent  him  to  finish,  and  also  that 
these  works  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  prove 
that  he  has  been  sent  by  the  Father.  That 
I  do,  bear  witness  of  me,  that  the  Father 
hath  sent  me.  A  full,  deliberate,  unam- 
biguous, powerful  assertion  of  the  divine 
character  of  his  works. 

37.  And  the  Father  himself.  (Better,  as 
in  Revised  Version,  And  the  Father  that 
sent  me,  he  hath  borne  witness  of  me).  The 
word  translated  he  (eKeii-os,  not  avToq,  according 
to  the  best  editoi-s),  represents  the  Father 
with  a  certain  dignity  and  force  which  belong 
to  no  other  pronoun,  as  used  by  this  Evangel- 
ist. But  to  what  testimony  of  the  Father 
does  Christ  refer?  Plainly,  not  to  "the 
works"  spoken  of  in  the  preceding  verse  ;  for 
both  the  change  of  tense  in  the  verb  and  the 
personal  emphasis  implied  in  the  pronoun 
point  to  a  distinct  testimony.  Possibly,  he 
refers  to  the  voice  from  heaven  at  his  baptism  ; 
yet  this  appears  to  have  been  heard  by  no  one 
save  himself  and  John  the  Baptist,  and  it  is 
more  likelj',  on  the  whole,  that  he  has  in  mind 
the  witness  of  prophecy  in  the  Old  Testament ; 
for  on  this  he  dwells  below.  Ye  have  neither 
heard  his  voice  at  anytime,  nor  seen  his 
shape  (or,  for7n).  By  this  language,  Jesus 
reminds  "the  Jews"  that  their  knowledge  of 


142 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  V. 


38  And  ye  have  not  his  word  abiding  in  you :  for 
•whom  he  hath  sent,  liim  ye  believe  not. 

39  "Search  the  Scriptures;  tor  in  them  ye  think  ye 
have  eternal  lite :  and  ''  they  are  they  which  testify  of 
me. 

40  'And  ye  will  not  come  to  me,  that  ye  might  have 
life. 


38  nor  seen  his  form.     And  ye  have  not  his  word  abid- 
ing in  you:    for  whom  he  sent,  him  ye   believe  not. 

39  1  Ye  search  the  scriptures,  because  ye  thiulv  that  in 
them  ye  have  eternal  life  ;  and  these  are  they  which 

40  bear  witness  of  me;  and  ye  will  not  come  to  me, 


ilsa.  8:  20;  34:  16;  Luke  16:  29;  ver.  46;  Acts  17  :  11 b  Deut.  18:  15.  18;  Luke  5 

the  scriptures. 


1 :  27  ;  ch.  1 :  45. . .  .c  ch.  1 :  11 ;  3  :  19. 1  Or,  Search 


God  was  not  direct,  like  his  own.  (See  ver. 
19,  20,  30;  and  6  :  46).  "The  true  relation  of 
ver.  36-38  is  this :  In  passing  from  the  testi- 
mony of  works,  ver.  36,  to  the  personal  testi- 
mony of  God,  ver.  37,  Jesus  mentions  the  two 
forms  which  the  latter  may  take:  that  of  a 
direct  apjiearing,  or  that  of  his  word  in  the 
Old  Testament.  The  first  of  these  was  denied 
them  \>y  the  nature  of  things;  the  second  was 
rendered  useless  by  their  own  fault."~(Godet. ) 
But  it  is  more  natural  to  suppose  that  both 
e.xpressions,  "Ye  have  neither  heard  his  vcjice 
nor  seen  his  form,"  are  employed  for  the  same 
purpose,  namely,  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
they  had  no  direct  knowledge  of  God.  Their 
only  source  of  knowledge  respecting  him  was 
"his  word." 

38.  And  ye  have  not  his  word  abiding 
in  you.  "The  Jews"  might  admit  their 
want  of  the  direct  knowledge  of  God,  which 
Jesus  claimed  to  po.ssess,  yet  thej-  surely  con- 
sidered themselves  to  be  scribes,  well  instruct- 
ed in  tlie  law.  But  Jesus  denies  even  this — 
denies  that  they  have  the  substantial  truth  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  their  hearts.  This  cruth, 
he  affirms,  has  no  permanent  influence  on 
them.  It  is  not  the  rule  of  their  faith  or  con- 
duct. What  teaching  was  ever  more  search- 
ing than  this?  It  was  like  Nathan's  word  to 
David:  "Thou  art  the  man"!  But  what 
reason  does  the  Lord  assign  for  this  statement? 
For  whom  he  hath  sent,  him  ye  be- 
lieve not.  That  they  do  not  receive  the 
Messiah,  of  whom  Moses  and  the  prophets 
wrote,  is  brought  forward  as  certain  proof  that 
the  word  of  God,  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  not 
a  living  power  in  their  souls.  Jesus,  there- 
fore, assumes  that  a  devout  Jew,  familiar  with 
the  Old  Testament,  must  recognize  him  as 
the  Sent  of  God,  and  Saviour  of  the  world. 

39.  Search  the  Scriptures,  i Better:  Ye 
search  the  Scriptures)— i.  e.^nfti^v  a  Rabbinic 
fashion,  with  a  certain  acuteness  and  dili- 
gence, seeking  to  know  the  letter  of  Scripture, 
yeady  to  multiply'  external  observances,  and 
to  bind  heavy  burdens  on  the  people,  willing 


to  pay  tithes  of  mint,  anise,  and  cummin, 
but  forgetting  the  weightier  matters  of  the 
law.  For  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eter- 
nal life.  They  supposed  that  a  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures  was  enough  to  ensure  their 
salvation.  The  Rabbies  said:  "He  who  ac- 
quires the  words  of  the  law,  acquires  for  him- 
self eternal  life."  They  were  hearers  of  the 
law,  but  not  doers  of  it.  They  gloried  in  their 
learning  and  formal  service,  but  were  unspir- 
itual,  envious,  jealous,  and  eager  to  destroy 
the  brightest  example  of  goodness  that  ever 
appeared  among  men.  How  could  they  read 
the  law,  and  still  dream  of  obtaining  eternal 
life  bj'  a  mere  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures? 
Yet,  in  another  way,  as  witnesses  for  Jesus, 
those  Scriptures  might  have  led  them  to  the 
Source  of  life  everlasting.  And  they  (or, 
those)  are  they  which  testify  of  me.  It  is 
their  very  nature  and  office  to  bear  witness  of 
Jesus.  How  abundant,  then,  must  be  the 
light  which  they  shed  upon  his  person  and 
work !  From  this  statement  alone,  it  may  be 
inferred  that  a  Messianic  element  pervades 
the  Old  Testament;  and  Augustine  is  justified 
in  saj'ing:  Novum  Testamentuni  inVetere  la- 
tet,  Vetus,  Testamentum  in  Novo  patet.  The 
New  Testament  is  hidden  in  the  Old ;  the  Old 
Testament  lies  open  in  the  Nciv. 

40.  And  ye  will  not  come  to  me,  that 
ye  might  (or,  may)  have  life.  To  come  to 
Jesus  is  to  apply  to  him  for  life,  to  believe  in 
him  as  the  Messiah  and  Saviour  of  men. 
Notice  the  simplicity,  power,  and  pungency 
of  the  Lord's  words  to  these  leaders  of  the 
Jewish  people.  "Ye  search  the  Scriptures, 
because  you  imagine  it  possible  to  obtain 
through  them  eternal  life,  vvhich  I  alone  can 
give;  and  those  very  Scriptures  are  bearing 
witness  of  me,  the  Giver  of  spiritual  and 
eternal  life;  and  ye  are  nevertheless  unwill- 
ing to  come  and  put  your  trust  in  me  as  the 
true  Messiah,  that  ye  may  have  life,  and  may 
have  it  even  now ;  for,  as  I  have  said,  '  the  Son 
maketh  alive  whom  he  will.' "  (See  ver.  21). 
Well  does  Schaff  remark  on  this  verse :   "The 


Ch.  v.] 


JOHN. 


143 


41  "I  receive  not  honour  from  men. 

42  But  I  know  you,  that  ye  have  not  the  love  of  God 
in  you. 

43  I  aiu  come  in  my  Fatlier's  name,  and  ye  receive 
me  not;  if  another  shall  come  in  his  own  name,  him 
ye  will  receive. 

44  '  How  can  ye  believe,  which  receive  honour  one 
of  another,  and  seek  not  ''the  honour  that  cuiutth  from 
God  only  ? 

45  Do'uot  think  that  I  will  accuse  you  to  the  Father: 
■'there  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  eueu  Moses,  in  whom 
ye  trust. 


41  that  ye  may  have  life.  I  receive  not  glory  from  men. 
4'.!  lUit  1  know  you,  that  ye  have  not  the  love  of  God  in 
4;5  yourselves.     I  am  come  in  my 'Father's  name,  and 

ye  receive  me  not :  if  another  shall  come  in  his  own 
44  name,  him  ye  will  receive.     How  can  yc  believe,  who 

receive  glory  one  of  anotlier,  and  the  glory  that 
4")  cijinel/i  from  '  the  only  God  ye  seek  not?    Think  not 

that  1  will  accuse  you  to  the  Father:  there  is  one 

that  accuseth  you,  even  Moses,  on  whom  ye  have  set 


over.  34;  1  Thess.  2:6 6  oil.  12  :  43 c  Rom.  2;  29 d  Rom  2:  12. 1  Some  ancient  authoiiiles  rtart.  the  only  one. 


springs  of  belief  and  unbelief  are  in  the 
heart  rather  than  in  the  head."  Men  are 
sometltnes  said  to  be  perishing  for  lack  of 
knowledge:  how  much  oftener  do  they  perish 
for  lack  of  willingness  to  use  the  knowledge 
within  their  reach  1  By  a  short  digression 
(ver.  41-44)  Jesus  now  points  out  the  reason 
why  "the  Jews"  would  not  accept  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Scriptures,  believe  in  him,  and 
have  true  life. 

41.  1  receive  not  honour  from  men  ;  or, 
glory  from  men  I  do  not  receive.  Jesus  first 
rei>els  the  reproach  which  might  be  rising  to 
the  lips  of  his  hearers,  that  he  was  himself 
seeking  glory  from  men  by  calling  upon  them 
to  believe  in  him. 

43.  But  I  know  (or,  have  knoum)  you. 
The  verb  is  in  the  perfect  tense,  signifying  a 
knowledge  of  them  which  had  come  down 
from  the  past  into  the  present.  That  ye 
have  not  the  love  of  God  in  you.  Says 
Grotius:  "The  emjjhasis  fiiUs  on  the  ^jronoun 
'you.'  Such  as  you  suppose  me  to  be,  j'ou 
3'ourselves  reallj'  are."  And  Hengstenberg 
remarks:  "Christ  does  not  utter  the  charge 
as  a  conjecture,  but  on  the  ground  of  clear 
and  certain  knowledge ;  he  utters  it  as  the 
One  who  knows  all  men,  knows  what  is  in 
man,  and  before  whom,  as  before  God,  the 
hearts  of  all  men  are  naked  and  opened." 
The  love  of  God  is  the  love  to  God  which  is 
required  by  the  law,  which  is  spiritual  and 
supreme,  and  which  is  essentially  the  same  in 
all  who  possess  it.     Hence  the  definite  article. 

42.  I  am  come  in  my  Father's  name, 
and  ye  receive  me  not.  Christ  was  the 
image  of  the  Father;  he  came  to  do  the 
Father's  will ;  he  affirmed  thtit  he  could  do 
nothing  apart  from  the  Father;  there  was  no 
self-seeking  in  his  heart;  he  valued  the  favor 
of  God  and  not  human  praise;  and,  therefore, 
"the  .Jews"  rejected  him  and  sought  his  life. 
Just  the  reverse  of  this  would  have  been  true 


had  the  love  of  God  been  truly  in  their, 
hearts.  If  another  shall  come  in  his  own 
name,  him  ye  will  receive.  A  piercing 
glance  into  the  future  I  "Sixty-four  such 
deceivers  have  been  counted  since  the  time  of 
Christ."— (Schudt  in  Bengel.)  And  "the 
Jews"  who  were  ready  to  imbrue  their  hands 
in  the  blood  of  Christ,  were  just  the  men  to 
be  blinded  by  the  flatteries  and  taken  by  the 
schemes  of  audacious  pretenders  to  Messianic 
dignity.  For  worldl3^  men  can  enter  into  the 
plans  of  the  worldly  (compare  John  12:  43). 
This  is  more  distinctly  taught  in  the  next 
verse,  or,  if  not  taught,  implied. 

44.  How  can  ye  believe,  Avhich  receive 
honour  one  of  another,  and  seek  not  the 
honour  that  cometh  from  God  only  (or, 
the  only  God).  The  word  which  is  here  trans- 
lated honour  is  commonly  rendered  "glory." 
A  selfish  spirit,  quaffing  the  cup  of  human 
applauseandlonging  forever  deeper  draughts, 
ic  not  likely  to  bow  before  Christ  and  accept 
of  true  life  from  him.  "  The  fear  of  man 
bringeth  a  snare"  (Prov. 29:25),  and  love  of 
human  praise  does  the  same.  "  Not  many 
wise  men  after  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty, 
not  many  noble  are  called"  (1  Cor.  i:  26).  "How 
weighty  this  declaration  is  for  our  time,  may 
be  clearly  seen.  Receiving  honor  from  man 
has  a  deep  place  in  our  theology.  This 
theology  is  extremely  anxious,  not  to  break 
with  the  spirit  of  the  age,  but  to  be  (n  accord 
with  it.  This  is  the  worm  which  is  gnawing 
it,  the  curse  which  is  resting  upon  it.''— (Heng- 
stenberg.) 

Resuming  his  appeal  to  the  witness  of  God 
in  the  Old  Testament,  Jesus  affirms  that  un- 
belief in  him  presupposes  unbelief  of  Moses. 

(Ver.  45-47). 

45.  Do  not  think  that   I  Avill   accuse 

you  to  the  Father— either  now  or  hereafter; 
a  statement  quite  in  harmony  with  ver.  22, 
23,  30 ;  for  the  office  of  a  judge  is  distinct  from 


144 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VI. 


4G  For  bad  ye  believed  Moses, ye  would  have  believed 
me:  <■  lor  he  wmte  of  me. 

47  But  if  ye  believe  uot  bis  wriliugs,  bow  shall  ye 
believe  my  words? 


40  your  hope.    For  if  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  be- 
47  lieve  me ;   for  be  wrote  of  me.     But  if  ye  believe  not 
his  wriliugs,  how  shall  ye  believe  my  words? 


CHAPTER   VI. 


AFTER  ''  these  things  Jesus  went  over  the  sea  of  Gali- 
lee, which  is  llie  sea  of  Tiberias. 


1      After  these  things  .Tesus  went  away  to  the  other 
side  ol  the  sea  of  Galilee,  which  is  the  sea  of  Tiberias. 


a  Geu.  3: 15;  12:3;  18:  18;  22:  18;  49:  10;  Deut.  18  :  15,  18;  ch.  1 :  45;  Acts  26:  22 h  Matt.  14  :  15  ;  Mark  6:  35;  Luke  9:  10,  12. 


tliat  of  an  accuser.  There  is  one  that  ac- 
cuseth  you— constantly ;  for  the  present  par- 
ticiple used  substantively  with  the  article  (o 
Ko-Trrfopiiv)  signifies  one  who  is  doing  habitually 
wh.^t  the  participle  expresses.  Hence,  you 
have  an  accuser— Moses— the  representative 

of  the  law  (Deut.  31 :  26;  John  7.  19;  Rom.  3:  20;  5:  20;  Gal. 

3:19, 21),  ill  whom  ye  trust  (or,  have  hoped, 
or,  set  your  hope).  (See  Rom.  2:  17).  Meyer 
calls  attention  to  the  "tragic  emphasis"  which 
is  given  to  the  pronoun  ye  (uf-tl^)  by  the  Sa- 
viour. These  Jews  had  hoped  and  were  still 
hojnng  to  merit  salvation  by  works  of  the 
law. 

46.  For  had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye 
would  have  believed  me.  A  more  exact 
rendering  is  given  in  the  Rev.  Version.  (See 
above).  Notice  (1)  the  conjunction  for,  which 
shows  that  this  verse  confirms  the  second 
clause  of  ver  4-5.  Moses,  in  the  law,  is  your 
accuser,  because  ye  do  not  believe  his  words, 
"for  had  ye  believed,"  etc.  Notice  (2)  that 
the  verbs  are  both  in  the  imperfect  tense,  and 
refer,  in  a  descriptive  way,  to  the  near  past, 
or  present.  The  translation  of  the  Rev.  Ver.  is 
the  best  representation  of  their  meaning  prac- 
ticable in  our  language.  (Comp.  Kiihner,  "6r. 
Gram.,"  ^3-50,  2  (2)  («);  Ctosby,  "Gr  Gram.," 
g  603J.  For  he  wrote  of  me.  The  words  of 
me  are  rendered  emphatic  in  the  original  by 
their  position.  This  is  a  perfectly  clesir  testi- 
mony, on  the  part  of  Christ,  to  a  Messianic 
element  in  the  Pentateuch,  as  well  as  to  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  same.  (Comp.  Gen. 
12:  3;  22:  18;  Num.  21:  9;  Deut.  18:  15 
sq.;  Matt.  5:  17  sq. ;  Luke  24:  44;  Rom. 
10:  5). 

47.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings, 
how  shall  ye  believe  my  words  ?  De  Wette 
remarks:  "This  conclusion  assumes  th;it,  on 
account  of  their  reverence  for  Mo.ses,  and 
their  attachment  to  the  written  word,  the  Jews 
could  believe  him  more  easily  than  they  could 
believe  the  spoken  words  of  Jesus."  The 
contrast,  however,  is  between  his  and  iny, 


not  between  writings  and  words.  But  this 
is  not  all,  as  Alford  and  Meyer  correctly  add: 
^'Moses  leads  to  Christ:  is  one  of  the  wit- 
nesses by  which  the  Father  hath  testified  of 
him." — (Alford).  "  Belief  in  Moses  is  neces- 
sary in  order  to  belief  in  Christ." — (Meyer, 
substantially;.  This  discourse  is  truly  won- 
derful for  depth,  simplicity,  and  boldness. 
As  uttered  by  the  holy  Son,  it  must  have 
astounded  "the  Jews,"  holding  them  spell- 
bound with  awe.  It  is  "so  characteristic, 
grand,  pointed,  and  telling,  that  the  idea 
of  an  invention  is  utterly  preposterous."  — 
(Schaffl.  After  quoting  the  words  of  Strauss : 
"If  the  form  of  this  discourse  must  be  at- 
tributed to  the  Evangelist,  it  may  be  that  the 
substance  belongs  to  Jesus."  Godet  proceeds 
thus:  "If  a  partial  understanding  of  the  dis- 
course has  wrested  this  avowal  from  such  a 
critic,  a  fuller  understanding  of  it  would  give 
one  the  right  to  sa,y :  Jesus  really  spoke  in  this 
wa}^  The  principal  theme  is  exactly  perti-  , 
nent  to  the  occasion.  The  secondary  ideas 
subordin;ite  themselves  logically'  to  this  theme. 
Not  a  detail  is  inconsistent  with  the  whole. 
And  the  application  is  solemn  and  impressive, 
as  it  ought  to  be,  in  such  a  situation.  It 
stamps  the  whole  discourse  with  the  seal  of 
reality." 

Ch.  6.  According  to  the  interpretation  of 
5:  1,  given  above,  the  Evangelist  now  pa.«ses 
over  in  silence  one  of  the  longest  and  busiest 
periods  in  the  ministry'  of  Christ — a  period  of 
either  a  whole  year,  or  of  at  least  ten  months 
— the  events  of  which  are  detailed  with  un- 
usual fullness  by  the  fir.st  three  Evangelists. 
These  events  are  set  down  in  the  following 
order  by  Dr.  Robinson  :  The  plucking  of  ears 
of  grain  on  the  Sabbath  (Matt.  12:  i-s),  the  heal- 
ing of  a  withered  hand  on  the  Sabbath 
(Matt.  12:  9-14),  Christ's  arrival  at  the  Sea  of  Ti- 
berias followed  by  multitudes  (Matt.  12:  15-21), 
his  withdrawal  to  a  mountain  and  choice  of 
the  Twelve  (Mark  3:  1319),  his  Sermon  on  the 


Ch.  VI.] 


JOHN. 


145 


2  And  a  great  multituile  followed  liini,  because  they 
saw  his  miracles  which  he  did  on  them  that  were  dis- 
eased. 


2  And  a  great  multitude  followed  him,  because  they 
beheld  the  signs  which  he  did  on  them  that  were 


Mount  (Matt. 5:  1;  8:  i),  healing  of  the  centuri- 
on's servant  (Matt. 8:  5-13),  raising  to  life  of  the 
widow's  son  (Luke?:  11-17),  deputation  from  the 
imprisoned  Baptist  to  Jesus  (Matt,  u:  2-19),  Je- 
sus anointed  by  a  woman  who  had  been  a 
sinner  (Luke7:  36-oo),  second  circuit  in  Galilee 
with  his  disciples  (LuteS:  i-a),  healing  of  a  de- 
moniac (MarkS:  19-30),  the  ScHbes  and  Pharisees 
seeking  a  sign  (Matt.  12: 38-45),  Christ  declaring 
his  disciples  to  be  his  nearest  kindred  (Matt.  12: 
46-50J,  denouncing  woes  against  the  Pharisees 
and  others  (Luke  11 :  37-54),  discoursing  to  his  di.s- 
ciples  and  the  multitude  (Luke  12:  1-59),  slaugh- 
ter of  certain  Galileans  and  parable  of  the 
barren  fig-tree  (Luke  13 :  1-9),  parable  of  the  sower 
(Matt.  13:  1-23),  parable  of  the  tares,  and  other 
parables  (Jiatt.  is:  24-53),  stilling  the  tempest  on 
the  lake  (Matt,  s:  18-27),  the  demoniacs  of  Gadara 
healed  (Matt.  8: 28-34),  Levi's  feast  (Matt.  9:  1017), 
raising  of  Jairus'  daughter,  etc.  (Matt. «:  18-26), 
healing  of  two  blind  men,  etc.  (Matt.  9:  27-34), 
Jesus  rejected  a  second  time  at  Nazareth 
(.Matt.  13:  54-58),  third  circuitin  Galilee,  the  twelve 
sent  forth  (Matt.  9:  35  38),  Herod  thinks  Jesus  to 
be  John  the  Baptist,  risen  from  the  dead 
(Matt.  14;  1,  J,  6-12).  A  large  part,  if  not  all,  of 
these  events  may  be  allotted  to  the  ten  months 
or  year  of  Christ's  ministry  which  John  has 
passed  in  silence. 

1-15.  Feeding  the  Five  Thousand. 
(Compare  Matt.  U:  13-21;  Mark  6:  30-44; 
Luke  9:  10-17). 

1.  After  these  things.  How  long  after, 
the  words  do  not  determine.  (Comp.  5:1; 
3:  22).  The  same  expression  could  be  used, 
whether  the  interval  between  the  events  re- 
ferred to  was  a  week,  a  month,  a  year,  or  even 
a  still  longer  period  ;  for  the  Greek  phrase 
(/ncTd  TttCra)  appears  to  be  perfectly  represented 
by  the  English  Version.  Jesus  went  (or, 
went  away).  From  what  place  ?  from  Jerusa- 
lem? or  from  Capernaum?  Probably  from 
Capernaum,  as  indicated  by  the  parallel  ac- 
counts in  the  first  three  Gospels.  Besides,  the 
disciples  return  from  the  other  side  to  this 
place  (ver.  17),  and  the  multitudes  repair  to  it, 
as  if  it  were  the  ordinary  home  of  Jesus 
(ver  24).  From  Matt.  4:  13,  we  learn  that  Je- 
sus had  left  Nazareth,  and  settled  in  Caper- 
naum ;  and  from  Matt.  9:  1,  that  it  was  prob- 


ably called  "his  own  city."  Hence,  the 
Evangelist  pa.sses  in  thought  from  Jerusalem 
to  Capernaum,  and  from  one  feast  to  the  ap- 
proach of  another;  but  whatever  events  he 
describes  at  all,  are  described  with  a  distinct- 
ness which  is  admirable.  Over  (or,  beyond) 
the  sea  of  Galilee,  which  is  the  sea  of 
Tiberias.  The  explanatory  words,  which 
is  the  sea  of  Tiberias,  are  added  because, 
when  this  Gospel  was  written,  the  Sea  of  Gal- 
ilee was,  probabl.y,  known  to  the  people  of 
Asia  Minor,  and  of  the  Koinan  Empire  gen- 
erally, as  the  Sea  of  Tiberias.  It  took  this 
name  from  a  city  on  its  southwestern  shore, 
built  by  Herod  Antipas,  and  named  Tiberias, 
in  honor  of  the  Emperor  Tiberius.  There  is 
no  evidence  that  Jesus  ever  visited  this  cit^', 
though  his  home  for  some  time  was  within  a 
few  miles  of  it.  This  Evangelist  does  not 
speak  of  the  manner  by  which  Jesus  went 
away  to  the  other  side  of  the  sea,  unless  some- 
thing on  this  point  is  presupposed  by  "  the 
ship"  spoken  of  in  ver.  17.  But  Matthew 
says  that  he  went  "in  a  ship,"  and  Mark, 
that. they  went  "by  the  ship."  The  word 
employed  by  Luke  (ujrfx<ipi)<T€)  is  quite  consist- 
ent with  these  statem.ents. 

2.  And  a  great  multitude.  Matthew 
and  Luke  omit  the  adjective,  but  make  the 
noun  plural,  "the  multitudes."  According 
to  paramount  critical  authority,  Mark  uses 
the  expression  "many"  without  anj'  noun. 
Followed  him — or,  were  following  him;  for 
the  word  pictures  the  scene,  being  in  the 
imperfect  tense.  From  the  testimony  of 
Matthew  and  Mark  it  appears  that  they  were 
"on  foot."  While  Jesus  passed  over  with 
his  disciples  in  a  small  ship  to  the  northeast 
shore  of  the  lake,  the  people  were  hastening 
on  foot  around  the  head  of  the  lake,  receiving 
accessions  to  their  number  from  the  villages 
near  which  they  passed  (Matt,  u:  is ;  Mark  6: 32). 
Thus  Hanna  describes  the  scene:  "The 
wind  blows  fresh  from  the  northwest;  for 
shelter  thej'  hug  the  shore.  Their  departure 
had  been  watched  by  the  crowd,  and  now, 
when  they  see  how  close  to  the  land  they 
keep,  and  how  slow  the  progress  is  they  make, 
a  great  multitude  out  of  all  the  cities — em- 
bracing, in  all  likelihood,  many  of  those  com- 


146 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VL 


3  And  Jesus  went  up  into  a  mountain,  and  there  he 
sat  with  his  disciples. 

4  "And  the  passover,  a  feast  of  the  Jews,  was  nigh. 


3  sick.     And  Jesus  went  up  into  the  mountain,  and 

4  there  he  sat  with  his  disciples.    Now  the  passover. 


a  Lev.  23  :  5,  7  ;  Deut.  16  :  1 ;  ch.  2 :  13 ;  5:1. 


panics  which  had  gathered  to  go  up  to  the 
passover — run  on  foot  along  the  shore." 
Because  they  saw — more  exactly — because 
they  loere  beholding ;  for  here  also  the  verb  is 
imperfect,  and  carries  the  mind  back  to 
the  attentive  on-looking  of  the  people,  as  the 
wonders  referred  to  were  performed,  one  after 
another.  His  miracles  which  he  did  on 
them  that  were  diseased:  or,  the  signs 
which  he  was  working  on  the  sick.  When 
John  the  Baptist  from  his  prison  sent  two  of 
his  disciples  to  Jesus,  who  was  then  probably 
in  Capernaum,  saying,  "Art  thou  he  that 
should  come,  or  should  we  look  for  another?" 
the  answer  of  Christ  was  an  appeal  to  his 
works:  "Go  and  show  John  those  things 
which  ye  do  hear  and  see:  The  blind  receive 
their  sight,  and  the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are 
cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear,  the  dead  are 
raised,  and  the  poor  have  the  gospel  preached 
to  them "  (Matt.n:5).  Works  of  mercy  and 
of  power,  which  were  continued  in  that  re- 
gion for  a  considerable  time. 

3.  And  Jesus  went  up  into  a  (rather,  the) 
mountain.  The  definite  article  before 
mountain  may  be  due  to  the  circumstance 
that  it  was  remembered  by  the  Evangelist  as 
the  scene  of  the  miracle  to  be  related,  or  to  the 
cirumstance  that  it  was  the  one  nearest  "a 
desert  place  belonging  to  Bethsaida."  (Comp. 
Luke  9:  10.)  This  Bethsaida  was  situated  on 
the  east  side  of  the  Jordan,  a  short  distance 
above  its  entrance  into  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 
See  Art.  Bethsaida  in  Smith's  "Diet,  of  the 
Bible."  Says  Thomson:  "This  bold  head- 
land marks  the  spot,  according  to  my  typog- 
raphy, where  the  five  thousand  were  fed  with 
five  barley  loaves  and  two  small  fishes.  From 
the  four  narratives  of  this  stupendous  miracle, 
we  gather,  1st,  that  the  place  belonged  to 
Bethsaida;  2d,  that  it  was  a  desert  place;  3d, 
that  it  was  near  the  shore  of  the  lake,  for  they 
came  to  it  by  boat;  4th,  that  there  was  a 
mountain  close  at  hand;  5th,  that  it  was  a 
smooth,  grassy  spot,  capable  of  seating  many 
thousand  people.  Now  all  these  requisites 
are  found  in  this  exact  locality,  and  nowhere 
else,  so  far  as  I  can  discover.     This  Butaiha 


belonged  to  Bethsaida.  At  this  extreme 
southeast  corner  of  it,  the  mountain  shuts 
down  upon  the  lake  bleak  and  barren.  It 
was,  doubtless,  desert  then  as  now;  for  it  is 
not  capable  of  cultivation.  In  this  little  cove 
the  ships  (boats)  were  anchored.  On  this 
beautiful  sward,  at  the  base  of  the  rocky  hill, 
the  people  were  seated  to  receive  from  the 
hands  of  the  Son  of  God  the  miraculous 
bread,  emblematic  of  his  body,  which  is  the 
true  bread  from  heaven." — ("The  Land  and 
the  Book,"  II.  p.  29.)  And  there  he  sat 
with  his  disciples.  From  the  narratives 
of  Mark  and  Luke  it  appears  that  some  of 
the  people  reached  the  landing  place  before 
the  boat  itself,  and  that  Jesus,  after  landing, 
spent  a  considerable  part  of  the  day  in  teach- 
ing them  many  things,  or  in  speaking  to 
them  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  in  healing 
those  that  had  need  of  healing.  Perhaps  he 
was  seated  with  his  disciples,  according  to 
Jewish  custom,  while  thus  teaching  the  peo- 
ple. But  his  teaching  was  interrupted,  ever 
and  anon,  by  the  presence  of  those  who  had 
need  of  healing;  and,  as  the  day  wore  on,  and 
the  disciples  mingled  with  the  throngs  who 
showed  no  signs  of  departing,  they  began  to 
feel  serious  anxiety  in  respect  to  food. 

4.  The  passover  (the  thii-d  in  Chj-isfs  min- 
istry, April  18,  A.  D.  29)  is  here  called  a 
(rather,  the)  feast  of  the  Jews,  showing 
that  it  was  the  most  important,  in  some  re- 
spects, of  their  feasts.  Others  have  suggested 
that  this  description  is  added  because  "the 
Jews"  were  now  so  hostile  to  Jesus  that  he 
could  not  safely  attend  the  passover  in  Jeru- 
salem. It  was  theirs,  under  their  control; 
and  thereupon  he  absented  himself  from  it. 
But  the  suggestion  is  unnecessary'  and  by  no 
means  obvious.  From  the  fact  that  this  pass- 
over  was  nigh,  may  be  inferred  the  season  of 
the  year,  about  the  middle  of  April.  It  has  also 
been  correctly  inferred  from  this  statement 
respecting  the  passover,  that  some,  at  least,  of 
the  multitude  who  followed  Jesus  were  per- 
sons on  their  way  to  Jerusalem  to  celebrate 
this  feast.  Others  have  supposed  that  it  had 
some  connection   in  the    Evangelist's  mind 


Ch.  VI.] 


JOHN. 


147 


5  "When  Jesus  then  lifted  up  his  eys,  and  saw  a  great 
company  come  iiiito  him,  he  saith  unto  Philip,  Whence 
shall  we  buy  bread,  that  these  may  eat? 

G  And  this  he  said  to  prove  him:  for  he  himself  knew 
what  he  would  do. 


5  the  feast  of  the  .Tews,  was  at  hand.  Jesus  therefore 
lilting  up  his  eyes,  and  seeing  that  a  great  multi- 
tude eometh  unto  him,  sailh  unto  I'hilip,  Whence 

6  are  we  to  buy  'bread,  that  these  may  eat?  And 
this  he  said  to  prove  him :   for  he  himself  knew 


a  Matt.  14 :  14 ;  Mark  6 :  35 ;  Lulce  9 :  12. 1  Gr.,  loaves. 


with  Christ's  discourse  respecting  himself  as 
the  bread  from  heaven — which  is  very  doubt- 
ful, i 

5.  When  Jesus  then,  etc.  ;  or  Jesus  there- 
fore lifting  np  his  eyes,  and  seeing  that  a 
great  multitude  eometh  unto  him,  saith  unto 
Philip :  Whence  are  we  to  buy  bread,  that 
these  may  eat?  It  appears  froin  this  that  at 
the  time  which  the  Evangelist  has  in  mind, 
people  were  still  coming  to  Jesus,  though  the 
day  was  far  spent.  The  word  therefore  may 
point  to  a  connection  between  this  verse  and 
the  preceding.  As  the  passover  was  near,  the 
multitudes  came,  and,  therefore,  Jesus  saw 
them  coming.  Or,  it  may  point  to  something 
in  the  mind  of  the  Evangelist,  and  not  ex- 


1  [Here  "  the  passover,"  though  found  in  all  known 
manuscripts  and  versions,  is  omitted  by  several  im- 
portant Fathers,  and  the  omission  is  apparently 
implied  in  several  other  patristic  statements  and 
chronological  arguments.  Pr.  Hort  (Westcott  not  con- 
curring) states  this  adverse  evidence  at  length  and  with 
favor,  though  not  venturing  to  propose  excision  without 
any  support  from  manuscripts  or  versions.  It  is  well 
known  that  many  early  Christians  (see  list  of  passages 
in  Hort)  regarded  "the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord  " 
(Luke  4 :  19,  from  Isa.  61 :  2)  as  showing  that  the  minis- 
try of  Jesus  lasted  but  one  year;  and  they  would 
suppose  this  notion  to  be  confirmed  by  the  fact  that 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  mention  no  passover  during 
his  ministry  but  that  of  the  crucifixion.  Now  it  seems 
to  us  that  all  the  patristic  arguments  and  allusions  may 
be  accounted  for  by  the  hypothesis  of  an  early  "  West- 
ern "  omission  of  "  the  passover,"  made  in  order  to 
bring  the  Fourth  Gospel  into  harmony  with  the  sup- 
posed teaching  of  the  others  and  with  the  popular 
opinion.  The  direct  patristic  proofs  given  by  Hort  are 
from  Irenaius,  who  regularly  uses  a  "  Western  "  text; 
from  Origen,  who  has  not  a  few  "  Western"  readings; 
from  Cyril,  who  seems  in  this  as  in  many  cases  to  have 
closely  followed  Origen;  and  from  the  so-called  Alogi 
(replied  to  by  Epiphanius),  who  may  also  have  used  a 
"  Western  "  text,  as  we  know  that  Epiphanius  himself 
has  many  readings  of  that  type.  This  hypothetical 
reason  for  omission  will  at  least  counterbalance  Dr. 
Hort's  supposition  that  "  the  passover  "  was  inserted  to 
suit  late  chronological  theories  founded  on  Phlegon's 
account  of  an  eclipse ;  especially  as  the  eclipse  was 
really  not  three,  but  four  years  after  the  1.5th  of  Tibe- 
rius, and  would  thus  have  suggested  a  similar  insertion 
in  John  5:  1.  The  reading  of  the  manuscripts  and 
versions  seems  therefore  to  stand  quite  unshaken.— B.J 


pressed.  According  to  the  other  Evangelists, 
the  disciples  first  suggested  the  difficulty 
about  food,  and  the  course  of  events  may  be 
represented  as  follows :  Late  in  the  afternoon, 
some  of  the  disciples  who  had  been  passing 
among  the  throngs  of  people,  came  to  Jesus, 
saying:  "The  place  is  a  desert,  and  it  is  now 
late;  send  the  people  away,  that  they  may  go 
into  the  fields  and  villages  round  about  and 
buy  food  for  themselves;  for  they  have  noth- 
ing    to      eat."'      (Matt.  U:  15;  Mark  6:  35,  36;  Luke  9:  1-2). 

Jesus  therefore,  without  replying  at  once  to 
this  suggestion,  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  thought- 
fully surveyed  the  crowds  still  pressing  to- 
wards him.  Then  turning  to  Philip,  he  said: 
Whence  shall  we  buy  bread  that  these 
may  eat? — which  was  at  least  an  intimation 
of  his  desire  to  feed  them  rather  than  to  send 
them  away.  Why  the  question  was  addressed 
to  Philip,  and  not  to  all  the  disciples,  can 
only  be  conjectured. 

6.  And  this  he  said  to  prove  him  (lit., 
trying  him) — i.  e.,  testing  his  faith  ;  for  it  does 
not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  the  mind  of 
Philip  that  he  who  had  changed  the  water  into 
wine  might  be  able  to  feed  the  hungry.  For 
he  himself  knew  what  he  would  (or,  was 
about  to)  do.  He  needed  not  to  take  counsel 
with  Philip,  that  the  latter  might  assist  him 
in  devising  means  to  supply  the  wants  of  the 
people.  His  purpose  was  formed,  and  his 
question  was  only  asked  to  test,  and,  in  the 
end,  strengthen,  the  faith  of  Philip.  Personal 
questions  take  hold  of  men,  and  are  remem- 
bered. "I  hear  you  cry,  in  bewilderment: 
'I  do  not  know.  I  have  been  to  everj^body, 
and  I  do  not  know  what  I  shall  do.'  That  is 
a  chronic  state  with  us  when  we  puzzle  our 
own  poor  brains.  Jesus  knew  what  he  would 
do.  This  is  sweet  comfort:  Jesus  knows.  He 
always  knows  all  about  it.  He  knew  how 
many  people  there  were  there.  He  knew  how 
much  bread  it  would  take;  he  knew  how 
many  fish  he  would  want,  and  how  he  meant 
to  feed  the  crowd,  and  send  them  all  away  re- 
freshed. He  knew  all  before  it  happened. 
He  perceived,  long  before  Andrew  told  him, 
that  there  was  a  lad  somewhere  in  the  crowd 


148 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VI. 


7  Philip  answered  hini,  "Two  hundred  pennyworth 
of  bread  is  not  sufficient  for  them,  that  every  one  of 
them  may  take  a  little. 

8  One  of  his  disciples,  Andrew,  Simon  Peter's  brother, 
saith  unto  him, 

9  There  is  a  lad  here,  which  hath  five  barley  loaves, 
and  two  small  fishes:  'but  what  are  they  among  so 
many? 

10  And  Jesus  said.  Make  the  men  sit  down.  Now 
there  was  much  grass  in  the  place.  So  the  men  sat 
down,  in  number  about  five  thousand. 


7  what  he   would    do.      Philip    answered  him,  Two 
hundred  i  shillings'  worth  of  2  bread  is  not  sufficient 

8  for  them,  that  every  one  may  take  a  little.     One  of 
his  disciples,  Andrew,  Simon  Peter's  brother,  saith 

9  unto  him.  There  is  a  lad  here,  who  hath  five  barley 
loaves,  and  two  fishes:    but  what  are  these  among 

10  so  many?  Jesussaid,  Make  the  people  sit  down.    Now 
there  was  much  grass  in  the  place.    So  the  men  sat 


I  See  Num.  11:  21,  22 b  2  Kings  4:  «. 1  See  marginal  note  on  Matt.  18:  28.... 2  Gr.,  loaves. 


with  five  barley  cakes.  When  the  lad  set  out 
in  the  morning,  I  cannot  make  out  what  made 
him  bring  five  barley  loaves  and  fishes  into 
that  crowd,  except  the  Master  had  whispered 
in  his  heart:  'Young  man,  take  with  you  a 
good  lunch.  Put  those  barley  cakes  into  the 
basket,  and  do  not  forget  the  fishes.  You 
do  not  know  how  long  you  may  be  from 
home.'  Nature  bade  him  provide  for  contin- 
gencies; but,  then,  nature  is  God's  voice,  when 
he  chooses  to  make  it  so.  .  .  Where  is  the 
man  that  is  to  be  the  universal  provider? 
Where  is  the  chief  of  the  commissariat?  It 
is  that  3'outh,  and  that  is  the  whole  of  his 
store-house.  .  .  The  Saviour  knew  that.  And 
he  knows  exactly,  dear  friend,  where  j^our 
help  is  to  come  from  in  your  hour  of  trou- 
ble." — Spurgenn. 

7.  Two  hundred  penni^^vorth  of  bread 
is  not  sufficient  for  them,  that  every  one 
(omit  of  them)  may  take  a  little.  A  penny 
(or,  denarius)  of  the  time  of  Christ  was  worth 
about  fifteen  cents  of  our  money,  and  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  the  usual  compensation  for 
a  day's  labor  in  the  field.  (Matt.  20:2).  The  sum 
mentioned  by  Philip  was,  therefore,  about 
thirty  dollars,  or  as  much  as  two  hundred 
men  could  earn  by  the  labor  of  a  day.  At 
this  point  may  be  inserted  the  words  of  Jesus 
preserved  by  the  other  Evangelists:  ^^They 
need  not  depart  (Matt.);  '■''give  ye  them  to  eat 
(Matt.,  Marl!,  Lnke) ;  and  the  Tcsponse  of  the  disci- 
ples :  Shall  we  go  and  buy  two  hundred  penny- 
worth of  bread,  and  give  them  to  eat?  with 
the  Saviour's  further  remark:  '''^ How  m,any 
loaves  have  ye?  Go  and  see."  And  now, 
either  after  inquiry',  or  because  he  already 
knew,  comes  the  word  of  Andrew. 

8.  One  of  his  disciples,  Andrew,  Simon 
Peter's  brother.  Notice  the  graphic  and 
personal  character  of  the  narrative.  Observe, 
also,  the  implied  concession  of  Peter's  emi- 
nence, in  a  Gospel  which  has  been  ascribed 
to  the  second  century,  because  it  aims  to  de- 


preciate him.  But  why  so  full  a  description 
of  one  who  made  so  unimportant  a  remark? 
The  Evangelist  did  not  look  upon  Andrew's 
report  as  unimportant.  It  was  remembered 
by  him  as  first  directing  attention  to  the  little 
store  with  which  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  had 
wrought  a  stupendous  miracle;  and  the  disci- 
ple who  had  done  this  had  enjoj'ed  a  privi- 
lege never  to  be  forgotten — even  as  it  has 
never  ceased  to  be  a  privilege  to  be  employed 
in  the  humblest  way  as  a  friend  of  Christ. 
And  the  greater  the  work  with  which  one's 
service  is  connected,  the  more  delightful  a  re- 
membrance of  it  will  be.  There  is  a  lad  (or, 
little  lad)  here,  which  hath  five  barley 
loayes,  and  two  small  fishes.  The  ex- 
pression translated  a  lad  {naiSdpiov  tv),  maj'  sig- 
nify a  single  lad;  for  the  numeral  one  (eV), 
though  not  specially  emphatic,  may  have  been 
chosen  by  Andrew  in  order  to  show  that  there 
was  but  one  who  had  any  food,  and  that  he 
was  a  small  boy,  or  servant,  who  had  only  u 
very  small  amount  of  provisions.  Hence,  the 
question,  or  exclamation :  But  what  are 
these  among  (or, /or)  so  many?  They  bore 
no  appreciable  relation  to  the  wants  of  such  a 
multitude.  It  may,  also,  be  observed  that  the 
food  was  plain,  such  as  was  commonly  used 
by  the  poorer  classes,  especially  the  barley 
bread.  Yet  suitable;  for  what  the  people  now 
required  was  food,  to  satisfy  hunger;  not  lux- 
uries, to  gratify  appetite. 

10,  Alake  the  men  sit  down  (or,  recline). 
Now  there  was  much  grass  in  the  place. 
The  grass  is  mentioned  because  it  rendered 
the  reclining  posture  agreeable.  But  the  no- 
tice of  it  shows  the  accuracy  of  the  Evangelist 
in  little  things  ;  for  just  at  this  season  of  the 
year  would  the  grass  be  green  and  abundant. 
So  (or,  therefore)  the  men  sat  down,  in 
number  about  five  thousand.  Mark  testi- 
fies that  they  "sat  down  in  ranks,  by  hun- 
dreds and  bj'  fifties."  The  number  of  women 
and  children  must  have  been  considerable, 


Ca.  VI.] 


JOHN. 


149 


11  And  Jesus  took  the  loaves;  and  when  he  had 
given  thanks,  he  distributed  to  the  disciples,  and  the 
disciples  to  them  tliat  were  set  down  ;  and  likewise  of 
the  fishes  as  much  as  they  would. 

12  When  they  were  tilled,  he  said  unto  his  disciples. 
Gather  up  the  fragments  that  remain,  that  nothing  be 
lost. 

13  Therefore  they  gathered  (hem  together,  and  filled 
twelve  liaskets  with  the  fragments  of  the  five  barley 
loaves,  which  remained  over  and  above  unto  them  that 
had  eaten. 

14  Then  those  men,  when  they  had  seen  the  miracle 
that  Jesus  did,  said,  This  is  of  a  truth  "that  Prophet 
that  should  come  into  the  world. 


11  down,  in  nuniher  about  five  thousand.  Jesus  there- 
fore took  the  loaves;  and  having  given  thanks,  be 
distributed   to  them  that  were  set  down;   likewise 

12  also  of  the  fishes  as  mucli  as  Ihey  would.  And  when 
they  were  tilled,  he  saith  unto  his  disciples,  Gather 
up  the  broken  pieces  which  remain  over,  that  noth- 

13  ing  be  lost.  So  they  gathered  them  up,  and  filled 
twelve  baskets  with  broken  pieces  from  the  five 
barley  loaves,  which  remained  over  unto  them  that 
had  eaten.     When  therefore  the  people  saw  the  'sign 

14  which  he  did,  they  said.  This  is  of  a  truth  the  pro- 
phet that  Cometh  into  the  world. 


a  Gen.  49:  10;  Deut.  18:  15,  18;  Matt.  U  :  3  ;  ch.  1 :  21 ;  4 :  19,  25;  7  :  40. 1  Some  ancient  authorities  read,  signs. 


though  they  were  not  counted.  "The  mar- 
shaling of  five  thousand  men,  besides  women 
and  children,  into  such  an  orderly  array, 
must  have  taken  some  time.  The  people, 
however,  quietly  consented  to  be  so  arranged, 
and  company  after  company  sat  down,  till  the 
whole  were  seated  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord, 
who  all  the  while  has  stood  in  silence,  watch- 
ing the  operation,  with  that  scanty  stock  of 
provisions  at  hand." — Hanna. 

11.  And  Jesus  (or,  Jesus  therefore)  took 
the  loaves ;  and  when  he  had  given 
thanks,  he  distributed  to  them  that  were 
set  down.  This  is  all  that  was  written  by 
the  Evangelist;  the  words,  the  disciples, 
and  the  disciples  to,  being  transferred  to 
this  place  from  Matthew.  Yet  the  distribu- 
tion was,  undoubtedly,  made  through  the  dis- 
ciples, as  the  Synoptical  Gospels  relate;  and 
this  may,  possibly,  be  intimated  by  the  com- 
pound verb  emploj'ed  (SieSw/cei/).  The  other 
Gospels  state,  also,  that  Jesus  broke  the  bread. 
And  likewise  of  the  fishes,  as  much  as 
they  would.  But  when  was  the  miracle 
wrought?  When  the  food  was  in  the  hands 
of  Jesus?  or  in  those  of  his  disciples?  or  in 
those  of  the  multitude?  Meyer  says:  "The 
Lord  blessed  and  gave  the  loaves  and  fishes, 
as  they  were,  to  the  disciples ;  and  then,  dur- 
ing their  distribution  of  them,  the  miraculous 
increase  took  place,  so  that  they  broke  and 
distributed  enough  for  all."  Wfc  may  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  broke  the  bread  partially,  and 
that  the  disciples  carried  on  the  process,  as 
they  gave  to  each  one  his  portion — the  bread 
meanwhile  increasing  as  they  continued  to 
break  and  distribute  it. 

12.  When  they  were  filled,  he  said  unto 
his  disciples.  Gather  up  the  fragments 
that  remain,  that  nothing  be  lost.  The 
repast  was  plain,  wholesome,  bountiful.  None 
went  from  that  supper  hungry,  unless  it  was 


for  spiritual  food.  Indeed,  there  was  more 
than  enough  for  all.  "The  command,  one 
end  of  which  was  certainly  to  convince  the 
disciples  of  the  power  which  had  wrought  the 
miracle,  is  given  by  our  Lord  a  moral  bearing 
also.  They  collected  the  fragments /or  their 
own  use[?],  each  in  his  basket  (^k6^ivo<:),  the 
ordinary  furniture  of  the  traveling  Jew,  to 
carry  his  food,  lest  he  should  be  polluted  by 
that  of  the  people  through  whose  territory  he 
passed. ' ' — Alford. 

13.  Of  the  size  of  these  baskets,  nothing 
very  definite  is  known.  They  are  called  by  a 
name  (K6(f>ii'ot),  different  from  that  given  to  the 
baskets  (o-TrupiSes),  used  when  the  four  thousand 
were  fed.  (See  Mark  8:  19,  20).  According 
to  the  Art.  in  Smith's  "Dictionary  of  the  Bi- 
ble," the  former'  were  generally  larger  than 
the  latter.  They  must,  then,  have  been  of 
considerable  size,  for  Paul  is  said  to  have  been 
let  down  in  one  of  the  latter  when  he  escaped 
from  Damascus.  (Acts 9:  25).  The  "Et3'molog- 
icum  Magnum"  defines  a  cophinus,  the  bas- 
ket used  in  this  case,  as  a  "deep  and  hollow 
vessel."  As  used  by  Roman  gardeners,  it 
held  manure  enough  to  make  a  hot-bed.  (Col- 
umella xi.  3).  Westcott  says:  "The  stout 
wicker  baskets  (ko(^iVous),  as  distinguished  from 
the  soft,  flexible 'frails'  (<rrrupi5es)."  From  the 
language  of  this  Gospel,  it  might  be  inferred 
that  the  fragments  were  those  of  the  barley 
bread  only,  while  Mark  appears  to  include 
remnants  of  the  fishes.  Perhaps  the  pieces  of 
fish  were  a  very  small  part  of  the  whole,  and 
therefore  passed  without  notice,  except  by 
Mark. 

14,  15.  Effect  of  the  Miracle  on  the 
People. 

14.  Then  those  men,  etc.  More  exactly: 
The  tnen,  therefore,  when  they  saw  the  sign 
which  he  did,  were  saying.  The  Evangelist 
uses  the  descriptive  ten.sc,  because  the  remark 


150 


JOHK 


[Ch.  VI. 


15  'Wlien  Jesiis  therefore  perceived  that  they  would 
come  and  take  him  by  force,  to  make  him  a  king,  he  de- 
parted again  into  a  mountain  himself  alone. 

Iti  "And  when  even  was  now  come,  his  disciples  went 
down  unto  the  sea, 

17  And  entered  into  a  ship,  and  went  over  the  sea  to- 
ward Capernaum.  And  it  was  now  dark,  and  Jesus 
was  not  come  to  them. 


15  Jesus  therefore  perceiving  that  they  were  about  to 
come  and  take  him  by  force,  to  make  him  king,  with- 
drew again  into  the  mountain  himself  alone. 

16  And  when  evening  came,  his  disciples  went  down 
unto  the  sea;  and  they  entered  into  a  boat,  and  were 

17  going  over  the  sea  unto  Capernaum.  And  it  was 
now  dark,  and  Jesus  had  not   yet   come  to  them. 


oMait.  14:23;  Mark  6;  47. 


passed  from  one  to  another,  and  was  often 
repeated.  This  is  of  a  truth  that  (rather 
the)  Prophet  that  should  come  (literally, 
that  Cometh)  into  the  world.  I^rom  the 
next  verse  it  appears  that  they  meant  the 
Messiah.  If  so,  some  of  the  people  probably 
interpreted  Deut.  18:  15  of  the  Messiah  to 
come.     Compare  1 :  21. 

15.  When  Jesus  therefore  perceived  (or, 
knew,  yvoOs) :  not  by  what  he  had  overheard 
them  saying,  nor  by  his  power  to  look  into 
their  hearts  and  perceive  the  hopes  which  his 
act  had  kindled,  but  by  his  foresight  of  what- 
ever concerned  his  own  work.  That  they 
vrould  (or,  were  about  to)  come — i.  e.,  unless 
prevented  by  himself— and  take  him  by 
force,  to  make  (or,  that  they  might  make) 
him  a  king.  The  pronoun  him  is  not  ex- 
pressed in  the  original.  We  are  astonished 
that  the  people,  after  beholding  such  a  sign 
of  Christ's  power  with  God,  should  have 
thought  it  possible  to  carry  him  by  force  to 
Jerusalem  for  such  a  purpose,  or,  indeed,  for 
any  other.  But  their  enthusiasm  was  evi- 
dently unreasoning — a  sudden  popular  im- 
pulse that  would  soon  die  out  of  their  hearts. 
He  departed  again  into  a  (rather,  the) 
mountain  himself  alone.  The  word  again 
is  probably  genuine,  and  refers  to  what  is  said 
in  ver.  3.  As  the  multitude  increased,  Jesus 
had  c(mie  down  to  the  edge  of  the  plain,  where 
he  taught  and  healed  the  sick,  and  at  last  fed 
the  people  with  the  five  loaves  and  two  small 
fishes.  Now  he  withdrew  once  more  into  the 
mountain,  not  taking  even  his  disciples  with 
him. 

16-21.  Miracle  of  "Walking  on  the 
Sea. 

"Omitted  by  Luke.  An  important  and 
interesting  question  arises :  Why  is  this 
miracle  here  inserted  by  St.  John?  That  he 
ever  inserts  for  the  mere  purpose  of  narration, 
I  cannot  believe.  The  reason  seems  to  me  to 
be  this:  to  give  to  the  twelve,  in  the  prospect 
of  so  apparently  strange  a  discourse  respecting 
his  body,  a  view  of  the  truth  respecting  that 


body,  that  it  and  the  things  said  of  it  were 
not  to  be  understood  in  a  gross,  corporeal, 
but  in  a  supernatural  and  spiritual,  sense." — 
(Alford.)  It  is  possible,  though  by  no  means 
probable,  that  this  miracle  was  performed  to 
give  to  the  twelve  a  view  of  the  truth  respect- 
ing his  body,  of  which  he  was  about  to  speak 
in  his  discourse  at  Capernaum,  but  it  is  not 
credible  that  John  inserted  this  narrative  to 
give  them  such  a  view;  for  they  must  have 
been  all,  or  nearly  all,  dead  when  he  wrote 
his  Gospel.  Alford  seems  to  have  been  influ- 
enced by  his  own  view  of  the  nature  of 
Christ's  body  as  related  to  the  holy  supper 
and  the  salvation  of  the  bodies  of  believers; 
but  his  statement,  as  it  reads,  is  phtinly  in- 
correct. 

16.  And  when  evening  was  (omit  now) 
come.  Matthew  distinguishes  an  early  even- 
ing, before  the  miracle  (u:  is),  from  a  later 
evening,  after  it  (h:23).  The  evening  here 
referred  to  is,  of  course,  the  later  one.  His 
disciples  went  down  unto  the  sea — liter- 
ally, npon  the  sea,  that  is,  the  sea-shore.  And 
this  they  were  constrained  to  do,  as  Matthew 
(14:22)  and  Mark  (6:45)  testify,  by  Jesus  him- 
self, before  he  sent  away  the  people  and  re- 
tired into  the  mountain. 

17.  And  (they)  entered  into  a  ship  (or, 
boat),  and  went  (or,  toere  going)  over  the 
sea  toward  (unto)  Capernaum.  It  is  doubt- 
ful whether  the  true  text  has  a  ship  or  the 
ship  in  this  place;  but  Matthew  and  Mark 
have  "the  ship,"  and  we  maj',  therefore, 
assume  that  the  disciples  entered  the  same 
ship,  or  boat,  in  which  they  had  come  over  to 
the  desert  place.  Notice  also  the  tense  of  the 
verb  were  going,  not  ^vent,  for  the  passage 
was,  for  the  present,  attempted,  rather  than 
accomplished.  Again,  John  marks  their  des- 
tination as  Capernaum,  while  Mark  gives 
their  direction  as  "towards  Bethsaida."  Both 
may  be  correct ;  for  in  order  to  reach  Caper- 
naum, they  might  have  to  go  for  some  time 
in   the   direction   of  the   western   Bethsaida. 

I  Moreover,  it  is  possible  that  they  kept  near 


Ch.  VI.] 


JOHK 


151 


18  And  the  sea  arose  by  reasou  of  a  great  wind  that 
blew. 

19  So  when  they  had  rowed  about  five  and  twenty  or 
thirty  furlongs,  they  see  Jesus  walking  on  the  sea,  and 
drawing  nigh  unto  the  ship:  and  they  were  afraid. 

2U  But  he  saith  unto  them,  It  is  I ;  be  not  afraid. 


18  And  the  sea  was  rising  by  reason   of  a  great   wind 

19  that  blew.  When  therefore  they  had  rowed  about 
five  and  twenty  or  thirty  furlongs,  they  bfheld  Jesus 
walking  on  the  sea,  and  drawing  nigh  unto  the  boat: 

20  and  they  were  afraid.    But  he  saith  unto  tbeui,  It 


the  northern  shore,  in  the  hope  of  recei%'ing 
Jesus  on  board.  And  it  was  now  dark  (or, 
darkness  had  now  coyne  on),  and  Jesus  was 
not  (or,  had  not  yet)    come  to  them.     "It 

would  appear,"  says  Alford,  "as  if  the  dis- 
ciples were  lingering  along  shore  with  the 
expectation  of  taking  in  Jesus,  but  night  had 
fallen,  and  he  had  not  come  to  them."  In 
some  secluded  place  on  the  mountain  he  was 
engaged  in  prayer  to  God  (Matt,  u: 23).  The 
darkness  troubled  him  not.  He  had  come 
into  the  world  to  dispel  a  thicker  darkness 
than  now  covered  hill-top  or  sea;  and  he  saw 
in  the  hearts  of  men  a  love  of  that  darkness 
in  preference  to  light.     Hence  he  praj'ed. 

18.  And  the  sea  arose  (lit.,  tvas  rising) 
by  reason  of  a  great  wind  that  blew.  In 
other  words,  the  sea  was  becoming  thoroughly 
waked  up,  aroused,  agitated,  by  a  strong 
wind  blowing  upon  it.  Matthew  says  that 
the  ship  was  "tossed  with  the  waves"  (or,  for- 
mented  by  the  waves),  "for  the  wind  was  con- 
trary "  (u:2i);  and  Mark,  that  Jesus  "saw 
them  toiling  (or,  tonnented)  in  rowing,  for 
the  wind  was  contrary."  "Two  or  three 
hours'  hearty  labor  at  the  oar  might  have  car- 
ried them  over  to  Capernaum.  But  the  ad- 
verse tempest  is  too  strong  for  them.  The 
whole  night  long  they  toil  among  the  waves, 
against  the  wind." — (Hanna).  "After  sunset, 
I  strolled  down  to  the  lake,  and,  seating  my- 
self upon  a  mass  of  broken  wall,  enjoyed  the 
freshness  of  the  evening.  All  the  day  there 
had  not  been  a  breath  of  air;  the  sultry  heat 
had  been  that  of  a  furnace;  but  now  a  cool 
breeze  came  off  the  table-land,  and,  rushing 
down  the  ravines  that  descend  to  the  lake,  be- 
gan to  ruffle  its  bosom.  As  it  grew  darker, 
the  breeze  increased  to  a  gale,  the  lake  became 
a  sheet  of  foam,  and  the  white-headed  break- 
ers dashed  proudly  on  the  rugged  beach  ;  its 
gentle  murmur  was  now  changed  into  the 
wild  and  mournful  sound  of  the  whistling 
wind,  and  the  agitated  waters.  Afar  off,  was 
dimly  seen  a  little  barque  struggling  with  the 
waves,  and  then  lost  sight  of  amidst  the  misty 
rack.  To  have  thus  seen  so  striking  an  exem- 
plification of  the  Scripture  narrative,  was  as 


interesting  as  it  was  unexpected." — W.  H. 
Bartlett,  quoted  from  Hackett's  "Illustra- 
tions of  Scripture"). 

19.  So  when  (or,  when,  therefore)  they 
had  (lit.,  have)  rowed  about  five  and 
twenty  or  thirty  furlongs.  That  is,  about 
three  and  a  half  miles,  which  agrees  with  the 
testimony  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  that  the 
ship  was  now  in  the  midst  of  tlie  sea.  They 
see  Jesus  walking  on  the  sea,  and  draw- 
ing nigh  unto  the  ship:  and  they  were 
afraid.  This  occurred  in  the  fourth  watch 
of  the  night  (Matt,  and  Mark),  a  little  before  the 
dawn  of  day,  or  in  the  early  morning  twi- 
light. Gazing  through  the  dusky  atmosphere 
at  the  human  form,  which  could  be  indis- 
tinctly seen  moving  towards  them  over  the 
agitated  sea,  they  imagined  it  to  be  a  phantom 
or  spectre,  and  wore  terrified.  The  scene  is 
thus  pictured  by  Hanna:  "They  were  rather 
more  than  half  across  the  lake,  when,  tread- 
ing on  the  troubled  waves,  as  on  a  level,  solid 
pavement,  a  figure  is  seen  approaching,  draw- 
ing nearer  and  nearer  to  the  boat.  Their  toil 
is  changetl  to  terror — the  vigorous  hand  re- 
laxes its  grasp — the  oars  stand  still  in  the  air, 
or  are  but  feebly  plied — the  boat  rocks  heavily 
— a  cry  of  terror  comes  from  the  frightened 
crew — they  think  it  is  a  spirit."  The  word 
used  by  the  Evangelists  Matthew  and  Mark 
{<t)'xvTa(xtJ.a)  signifies  a  phantom,  or  ap2)n7'ition, 
not  a  spirit.  From  the  narrative  of  Mark, 
it  appears  that  Jesus  was  pleased  to  go  by 
them  ;  that  is,  he  did  not  attempt  or  desire  to 
enter  the  ship  for  his  own  sake,  but  only  at 
their  request.  Yet  he  was  there  as  a  friend, 
and  was  prompt  in  dispelling  their  illusion 
and  their  fear. 

20.  It  is  I ;  be  not  afraid.  There  was 
no  mistaking  that  voice.  The  form  might  be 
spectral,  but  the  voice  was  their  Master's. 
Matthew  and  Mark  preserve  another  word: 
"  Have  courage  ;  it  is  I;  be  not  afraid."  The 
Greek  expressions  are  briefer  than  their  En- 
glish equivalents:  "Courage!  it  is  I;  fear 
not" — five  strong,  clear  words,  putting  heart 
into  the  disciples  instantl3'.  Matthew  adds  an 
incident,  showing  their  wonderful  effect  upoa 


152 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VI. 


21  Then  they  willingly  received  him  into  the  ship: 
and  immediiitely  the  ship  was  at  the  laud  whither  they 
went. 

22  The  day  following,  when  the  people,  which  stood 
on  the  other  side  of  the  sea,  saw  that  there  was  none 
other  boat  there,  save  that  one  whereinto  his  disciples 
were  entered,  and  that  Jesus  went  not  with  his  disciples 
into  the  boat,  but  l/iat  his  disciples  were  gone  away  alone: 


21  is  I ;  be  not  afraid.  They  were  willing  therefore  to 
receive  him  into  the  boat:  and  straightway  the 
boat  was  at  the  laud  whithtr  they  were  going. 

22  On  the  morrow  the  multitude  that  stood  on  the 
other  side  of  the  sea  saw  that  there  was  none  other 
iboat  there,  save  one,  and  that  Jesus  entered  not 
with  his  disciples  into  the  boat,  but  thai  his  disciples 


1  6r.  little  boat. 


Peter,  the  most  impulsive  and  daring  of  the 
twelve,  (li:  28-32).  The  omission  of  this  inci- 
dent by  John  accords  with  the  general  brev- 
ity of  his  narrative,  and  does  not,  therefore, 
point  to  any  undervaluing  of  Peter.  The  in- 
cident is  not,  indeed,  as  recorded  by  Matthew, 
altogether  creditable  to  Peter;  for  it  illus- 
trates the  weakness  as  well  as  the  strengtii  of 
his  faith— the  instability  as  well  as  the  energy 
of  his  character. 

21.  Then  they  Avillingly  received  him 
into  the  ship.  The  Kevised  Version  is 
better:  They  were  willing  therefore  to  re- 
ceive him  into  the  boat.  Willing,  becau.se 
their  fear  was  now  gone,  since  they  recog- 
nized the  One  who  had  come  to  them 
in  so  wonderful  a  manner  as  their  Lord. 
Jesus  came  into  the  ship,  and,  according  to 
Matthew,  they  that  were  in  the  ship  came 
and  worshiped  him,  saying:  "Of  u  truth 
thou  art  the  Son  of  God."  On  the  other 
hand,  John's  language  is  tliought  by  some  to 
imply  that  Jesus  did  not  enter  tlie  siiip:  they 
wished  to  take  him  into  the  ship,  but  did  not. 
This,  however,  introduces,  without  any  neces- 
sity, a  contradiction  between  this  Gospel  and 
the  first  two.  Alford's  note  is  correct: 
"They  were  afraid: — but  being  re-assured  by 
his  voice,  they  were  willing  to  take  him  into 
the  ship;  and  upon  their  doing  so,  the  ship. 
in  a  comparatively  short  time,  was  at  the  land 
to  which  they  had  been  going."  Against  this 
interpretation,  Godet  remarks  that  the  verb 
"were  willing"  (jjecXov),  is  in  the  imperfect 
tense,  and  denotes  an  incomplete  action." 
He  would  explain  the  words  thus:  ".4<  the 
moment  when  they  were  wishing  to  receive 
him,  the  ship  came  to  land.  Jesus  indeed 
entered  the  barque,  but  had  no  time  to  seat 
himself  there;  for,  simultaneously  with  his 
stepping  on  board,  it  reached  the  shore." 
But  the  objection  from  the  imperfect  tense  is 
not  well  taken.  No  tense  could  be  so  suitable 
to  express  a  feeling  which  continued  from  the 
moment  when  the.v  heard  the  voice  of  Jesus 
until  he  was  in  the  boat.     "With  rare  and 


vivid  recollection  of  the  scene,  John  repro- 
duces, as  in  a  picture,  the  feeling  of  the  dis- 
ciples, while  the  impulsive  Peter  was  walking 
and  sinking  and  being  saved,  and  while  their 
Master  was  making  his  way,  with  Peter,  into 
their  storm-tossed  boat. 

22-24.  Why  the  Multitude  Remained 
ON  THE  Eastern  Shore  Till  the  Next 
Day,  and  Then  Came  Over  to  the  West 
Side  to  Capernaum. 

The  structure  of  these  verses  is  involved, 
and  the  narrative  very  compressed,  but  the 
meaning  of  the  Evangelist  is  tolerably  evi- 
dent. 

22.  The  day  following— i.  c,  after  the 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand.  When  the 
people,  which  stood  on  the  other  side 
of  the  sea.  Omit  when  and  substitute  imd- 
titude  for  people,  with  the  Revised  Version. 
The  other  side  means  the  eastern,  as  con- 
trasted with  the  western  side.  Stood — ivere 
standing,  or  remaining :  "For  this  verb  often 
means  to  stand,  not  as  opposed  to  other  atti- 
tudes, but  to  be  fixed,  stationary,  as  opposed  to 
the  idea  of  motion." — (Hackett  on  Acts  9:  7). 
Saw  that  there  was  none  other  boat  there 
save  one.  For  the  words  that  whereinto 
his  disciples  were  entered,  are  rejected 
by  the  best  editors.  And  that  Jesus  went 
not  with  his  disciples  into  the  boat,  but 
that  his  disciples  Avere  gone  (better,  went) 
away  alone.  So  that  Jesus  was  supposed 
by  them  to  be  still  on  the  eastern  side,  where 
he  might,  perhaps,  soon  show  himself  again. 

The  critical  editors  (Lach,  Tisch,  Treg,  W. 
&  H.)  substitute  the  verb  saw  (elSov)  for  the 
participle  having  seen  (\&tov)  in  the  second 
clause  of  this  verse.  But  the  verbal  form 
ma.y  have  come  from  the  feeling  of  a  tran- 
scriber that  the  word  here  must  have  been 
exactly  repeated  in  ver.  24.  The  reference, 
however,  of  the  verl)  or  participle  in  this 
verse,  is  to  the  state  of  affairs  at  the  close  of 
the  day  of  the  miracle,  and  possibly  at  the 
beginning  of  the  next  day,  while  the  reference 
of  saw  in  ver,  24,  is  to  the  state  of  affairs  farther 


Ch.  VI.] 


JOHN. 


153 


23  Howbeit  there  came  other  boats  fnmi  Tiberias 
nigh  unto  the  [lUice  where  they  did  eat  bread,  after 
that  the  Lord  had  given  thanks: 

24  When  the  people  theretbre  saw  that  Jesus  was  not 
there,  neither  his  disciples,  they  also  took  shipping,  and 
came  to  Capernaum,  seeking  for  Jesus. 

25  And  when  they  had  found  him  on  tlie  other  side 
of  tlie  sea,  they  said  unto  him,  Kabbi,  when  earnest 
thou  hither? 

20  Jesus  answered  them  and  said.  Verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  you.  Ye  seek  me,  not  because  ye  saw  the 
miracles,  but  because  ye  did  eat  of  the  loaves,  and  were 
filled. 


23  went  away  alone  (howbeit  there  came  'boats  from 
Tiberias   nigh   unto   the   place  where  they  ate  the 

24  bread  after  the  Lord  had  given  thanks):  when  the 
multitude  therefore  saw  that  Jesus  was  not  Iheie, 
neither  his  disciiiles,  they  themselves  got  into  the 

25  1  boats,  and  came  to  Capernaum,  seeking  Jesus.  And 
when  they  found  him  on  the  other  side  of  the  sea, 
they  said  unto  liim,  Kabbi,  when  camest  thou  hither? 

26  Jesus  answered  them  and  said,  Verily,  verily,  1  say 


1  Gr.  little  boats. 


on  in  the  day  following.  Hence  the  parti- 
ciple affords  the  easier  reading,  and  this  may 
be  considered  an  argument  against  it.  We 
have  supposed  the  more  difficult  or  verbal 
form  original,  but  it  is  a  case  where  certainty- 
is  out  of  the  question.  And  the  meaning  of 
the  writer  must  have  been  essentially  the 
same,  whichever  form  was  written  by  him. 

33.  Howbeit  there  came  other  boats — 
the  word  other  should  be  omitted — from 
Tiberias,  nigh  unto  the  place  where  they 
did  eat  bread  (or,  where  they  ate  the  bread)., 
after  that  the  Lord  had  given  thanks. 
This  parenthetic  remark  appears  to  have  been 
inserted  to  account  for  the  boats  which  were 
available  for  the  people  who  remained  on  the 
eastern  shore  after  the  disciples  had  gone 
away  in  the  only  boat  whicli  was  there  on  the 
day  of  the  miracle  (see  ver.  22).  When  the 
people  (multitude)  therefore  saw.  That 
is,  on  the  morrow,  (ver.  22:)  the  mind  of  the 
writer  going  back  to  the  time  specified  before. 
That  Jesus  was  not  there,  neither  his 
disciples.  For,  down  to  this  time  they  had 
imagined  that  Jesus  was  near  them  and  that 
his  disciples  might  return  for  him..  They 
also,  or,  they  themselves,  took  shipping, 
(literally,  got  into  the  boats),  namely,  those 
which  had  come  near  the  place  where  they 
were  from  the  southwestern  shore  at  Tiberias. 
And  came  to  Capernaum,  seeking  for 
Jesus.  It  need  not  be  assumed  that  the 
number  who  came  by  these  boats  was  very 
great.  Many  had  repaired  to  their  homes, 
when  dismissed  by  Jesus,  the  evening  before 
(Matt.  14:23).  That  the  people  directed  their 
way  to  Capernaum,  is  evidence  that  Caper- 
naum was  regarded  by  them  as  the  residence 
of  Jesus — an  instance  in  which  the  author  of 
this  Gospel  silently  confirms  what  is  related 
by  others.  Such  incidental  harmonies  go 
very  far  towards  establishing  the  truth  of  all 
the   Gospels.     The   people  are  said  to  have 


come  over  to  Capernaum  seeking  for  Jesus  ; 

but  all  seeking  is  not  the  same:  everything 
in  the  end  depends  on  tlie  character  of  the 
seeking,  on  the  motive  which  leads  to  it. 
There  is  a  seeking  of  Jesus  which  is  self- 
seeking  only. 
25-41.  PiRST  Dialogue,  i 

25.  And  Avhen  they  had  found  him  on 
the  other  side  of  the  sea.  That  is,  on  the 
western  side  of  the  lake,  and  indeed  in  the  syn- 
agogue of  Capernaum  (ver.  59).  Meanwhile,  Je- 
sus had  not  been  idle,  but  had  healed  many  of 
the  sick  in  "the  land  of  Gennesaret."  (Mati. 
14:  34-36;  Mark  6:  sr,. 36).  Rabbi,  When  camcst 
thou  hither?  "The  question  in  respect  to 
time  includes  the  question  in  respect  to  man- 
ner."— (Bengel).  When  and  how  hast  thou 
got  here?  The  Greek  verb  is  in  the  perfect 
tense.  The  question  may  have  been  one  of 
simple  perplexity  and  surprise.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  they  were  thinking  of  a  miracle 
in  the  case. 

26.  Our  attention  is  arrested, /irsj!,  by  the 
great  earnestness  of  the  Lord's  reply  :  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  This  reiterated  word 
reveals  the  infinite  importance  of  what  he 
is  to  saj'.  Secondly,  by  the  utter  want  of 
any  appreciation  of  his  spiritual  work  on  the 
part  of  those  who  had  found  him.  They  were 
not  awed  and  elevated  and  made  reverent  to- 
ward God  by  the  miracles  which  they  had 
seen.  Thirdly,  by  the  completely  selfish  na- 
ture of  their  motives  If  they  longed  for  the 
Messiah  at  all,  it  was  because  they  expected 
glory  and  advantage  to  themselves  from  him. 
The  kingdom  of  God,  in  their  estimation,  was 
"meat  and  drink,"  not  "righteousness  and 
peace,  and. joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Rom.  i4:  n). 
Fourthly,  by  the  perfect  knowledge  which 
Jesus  had  of  the  hearts  of  these  men.     In  this 

1  See  an  interesting  and  instructive  paper  on  the  fol- 
lowing discourse  in  Bib.  Sac.  for  1854  (vol  xi.),  p.  693  sq. 


154 


JOHN. 


[Cpi.  VI. 


27  Labour  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but  "  for 
that  meat  which  endureth  unto  everlasting  life,  which 
the  Son  of  man  shall  give  unto  you :  '  for  him  hath  God 
the  Father  sealed. 

28  Then  said  they  unto  him,  What  shall  we  do,  that 
we  might  work  the  works  of  (iod? 

29  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  i^This  is  the 
work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath 
sent. 

30  They  said  therefore  unto  him,  <*  What  sign  shew- 
est  thou  then,  that  we  may  see,  and  believe  thee  ?  what 
dost  thou  work  ? 


unto  you.  Ye  seek  me,  not  because  ye  saw  signs,  but 

27  because  ye  ate  of  the  loaves,  and  were  filled.  Work 
not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but  for  the  meat 
which  abideth  unto  eternal  life,  which  thu  Son  of 
man  shall  give  unto  you:  for  him  the  Father,  ecew 

28  God,  hath  sealed.  They  said  therefore  unto  him. 
What  must  we  do,  that  we  may  work  the  works  of 

29  God?  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them.  This  is 
the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  ou  him  whom  i  he 

30  hath  sent.  They  said  therefore  unto  him.  What 
then  doest  thou  for  a  sign,  that  we  may  see,  and  be- 


:  37  ;  8  :  18  ;  Acts  2 : 
-1  Or,  he  sent. 


22;  2  Pet.  1:  17 


instance,  as  in  every  other,  he  appears  to  be 
able  to  look  into  the  souls  of  those  whom  he 
addresses,  and  speak  to  every  one,  with  abso- 
lute certainty,  the  appropriate  word. 

It  may  also  be  observed  that  Jesus  refers 
to  the  miracles  of  healing  which  he  had 
■wrought,  as  well  as  to  the  feeding  of  the  mul- 
titude, using  for  this  purpose  the  plural, 
miracles,  or  signs,  not  the  singular,  as  would 
be  suitable  in  referring  to  one. 

27.  Labour  (lit.,  work)  not  for  the  meat 
(lit.,  food)  which  perisheth.  Many  inter- 
preters suppose  that  rebuke  is  implied  as  well 
as  exhortation  expressed  by  the  term  work 
(epyi^eaJc);  as  if  Jesus  had  Said :  "You  wish  to 
be  fed  without  labor  on  your  part;  but  I  say 
unto  you,  Work;  obtain  food  by  labor;  yet  not 
the  food  which  you  desire,  food  for  the  body, 
which  satisfies  for  a  time  and  then  perishes, 
but  food  for  the  soul,  food  that  will  never  lose 
its  power  to  nourish  him  who  obtains  it ;  food 
which  the  Son  of  man  shall  (or,  u)ilU)  give 
unto  you  :  for  him  hath  God  the  Father 
sealed."  This  sealing,  or  acknowledgment 
of  Jesus  was  made  at  his  baptism,  and  by 
every  miracle.  Alford  remarks,  that  "the 
future,  will  give,  is  u.sed  because  the  great  sac- 
rifice was  not  yet  offered."  But  this  isscarcelj' 
correct ;  for  the  benefit  of  the  Saviour's  death 
had  been  experienced  by  multitudes  before 
he  expired  on  the  cross.  The  future  tense  of 
the  verb  is  more  naturally  explained  by  the 
circumstance  that  Jesus  was  thinking  of  those 
who  had  not  yet  sought  the  spiritual  food  in 
question.  To  such  persons  his  language  was 
addressed  and  adapted.  And  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served that  he  distinctly  presents  himself,  the 
Son  of  man,  as  the  giver  of  this  spiritual  food. 
This  is,  perhaps,  the  most  important  feature 
of  his  reply. 

28.  What  shall  (or,  must)  we  do,  that 
we  might  (rather,  may)  work  the  works  of 
God?    The  men  are  Jews,  trained  to  the  ob- 


servance of  Rabbinical  traditions.  By  the 
works  of  God,  tliey  mean  works  required  by 
God,  and,  therefore,  pleasing  to  him  in  par- 
ticular; those  to  which  they  imagine  them- 
selves to  be  summoned  by  Christ.  They  per- 
ceive that  Jesus  has  in  mind  a  religious  or 
spiritual  good,  and  they  conclude  that  it  must 
be  obtained  by  the  performance  of  certain 
new  but  unnamed  works  of  righteousnes'. 
These  they  are  willing  at  least  to  consider;  for 
they  are  anxious  to  stand  well  in  the  new 
kingdom  of  God.  But  they  quite  overlook 
the  most  significant  part  of  Christ's  response, 
the  declaration  that  he  will  give  them  the 
food  which  will  ensure  eternal  life.  To  this 
point,  he  therefore  directs  their  attention  by 
words  so  plain  that  their  meaning  cannot  be 
overlooked. 

29.  This  is  the  Avork  of  God— the  one 
new  and  special  thing  required  by  God,  on 
which  everything  else  depends — that  ye  be- 
lieve on  (or,  in)  him  whom  he  hath  sent. 
The  expression  in  him,  etc.  (eU  oi-),  represents 
Jesus  as  the  one  towards  whom  belief  must  be 
directed,  and  in  whom  it  must  rest.  "As  ser- 
vants of  God,  they  must  yield  themselves 
with  entire  confidence  to  the  messenger  of 
God." — (SchaflT).  This  answer  of  Jesus  has 
been  cited  as  a  brief  statement  of  Paul's  great 
doctrine,  that  justification  depends  on  faith  in 
Christ,  and  as  a  proof  that  saving  faith  in- 
cludes trust  in  Chri-st.  To  believe  in  Christ  is 
more  than  to  believe  Christ,  though  the  latter 
should  lead  to  the  former.  The  tense  of  the 
verb  translated  hath  sent  (lit.,  sent),  shows 
that  Christ  looked  at  the  act  of  sending  as  ac- 
complished. 

30.  What  sign  shewest  (lit.,  doest)  thou 
then, that  we  may  see, and  believe  thee? 
What  dost  thou  work?  It  seems  very  sur- 
prising that  this  multitude,  some  of  them  fresh 
from  the  scene  of  yesterda3''s  miracle,  should 
now  ask  for  additional  evidence  of  the  Messi- 


Ch.  VI.] 


JOHK 


155 


31  "  Our  fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the  desert :  as  it  is 
•written,  '  He  gave  them  bread  from  heaven  to  eat. 

32  Then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  Moses  gave  you  not  that  bread  from  heaven  ; 
but  my  P'atlier  giveth  you  the  true  bread  from  heaven. 

33  For  the  bread  of  God  is  he  which  cometh  down 
from  heaven,  and  giveth  life  unto  the  world. 

34  «Then  said  they  unto  him.  Lord,  evermore  give  us 
this  bread. 

35  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  <*  I  am  the  bread  of  life: 
«he  that  cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger:  and  he 
that  believeth  on  me  shall  never  thirst. 


31  lieve  thee?  what  workest  thou  ?  Our  fathers  ate  the 
manna  in  the  wilderness  ;  as  it  is  written.  He  gave 

32  them  bread  out  of  heaven  to  eat.  Jesus  therefore 
said  unto  them.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  It  was 
not  Moses  that  gave  you  the  bread  out  of  heaven  ; 
but  my  Father  giveth   you   the  true  bread   out  ot 

33  heaven.  For  the  bread  of  God  is  that  which  cometh 
down  out  of  heaven,  and  giveth  life  unto  the  world. 

34  They  said  therefore  unto  him,  Lord,  evermore  give 

35  us  this  bread.  Jesus  said  unto  them,  1  a:n  the  bread 
of  life:  he  that  cometh  tome  shall  not  hunger,  and 


(Ex.16:  15;  Num.  11 :  7  J  Neh.  9:  15;  1  Cor.  10  :  3 b  Ps.  78:  24,  25 c  Seech.  4: 15 d  ver.  48:  58 ech.  4:  14;  7:  37. 


ahship  of  Jesus.  But  it  is  clear,  from  the 
whole  narrative,  that  they  were  carnal,  won- 
der-loving, and  ready  to  ask  for  miracle  upon 
miracle.  They  demand  a  greater  sign  before 
they  will  believe  Jesus  (Trio-TeucrujjiAei'  croi),  to  say 
nothing  of  believing  in  him. 

31.  Our  fathers  did  eat  {the)  manna  in 
the  desert ;  as  it  is  written,  He  gave 
them  bread  from  heaven  to  eat.  The 
mention  of  food  that  does  not  perish,  but  en- 
dureth  unto  eternal  life,  reminds  them  of  the 
manna  that  was  given  to  their  fathers,  when 
under  the  leadership  of  Moses,  and  they  at 
once  intimate  the  propriety  of  a  similar  bless- 
ing from  Jesus.  If  he  will  give  them,  by 
miracle,  not  barley  bread  and  fishes  only,  but 
the  food  of  angels,  they  may  receive  him  as 
the  Messiah,  greater  than  Moses.  (Comp.  Ps. 
78 :  24). 

33.  "With  an  earnest  Verily,  verily,  show- 
ing the  importance  of  his  words,  Jesus  an- 
swers: Moses  gave  you  not  that  bread 
from  heaven.  Better,  Rev.  Ver. :  It  was 
not  Moses  that  gave  you  the  bread  out  of 
heaven.  As  this  is  a  response  to  the  words 
just  used  by  the  people,  the  bread  from 
heaven  must  refer  to  the  manna.  Christ, 
therefore,  says :  It  is  not  Moses,  as  you  sup- 
pose, who  has  given  to  you,  the  chosen  people, 
the  bread  from  heaven.  For,  though  it  was 
but  a  type  of  the  true  bread  from  heaven,  it 
was  of  supernatural  origin,  and  not  a  gift 
from  Moses.  But  my  Father  giveth  (or,  is 
giiniig)  you  the  true  bread  from  heaven. 
By  the  true  bread  from  heaven,  is  meant 
that  which  answers  perfectly  to  the  idea  of 
bread  from  heaven. 

33.  For  the  bread  of  God  is  he  (or,  that) 
which  cometh  doAvn  from  heaven,  and 
giveth  life  unto  the  world.  In  other  words, 
the  genuine  bread  of  God,  the  bread  which 
he  gives,  is  distinguished  by  these  two  quali- 
ties: (1)  it  is  heaven-descending,  coming  down 


from  God  to  men ;  and  (2)  it  is  life-giving, 
even  to  every  man,  whether  Jew  or  Greek, 
who  partakes  of  it.  Hence,  the  world  of 
mankind  are  dead  until  thoy  receive  this  food. 
The  Common  Version,  He  which  cometh 
down  from  heaven,  etc.,  is  grammatically 
possible,  and  is  defended  by  Godet ;  but  it  does 
not  agree  with  the  next  verse.  The  people 
certainly  supposed  that  Jesus  referred  to  some 
celestial  food,  not  himself,  as  giving  life  to  the 
world ;  for  then  said  they  unto  him  : 

34.  liord,  evermore  give  us  this  bread. 
This  was  said,  probabh',  without  bitterness  or 
contempt.  For  the  people,  doubtless,  assumed 
that  bread  from  heaven  must  be  a  good,  and, 
indeed,  a  miraculous  good,  though  its  cliar- 
acter  was  not  clearly  apprehended  by  them. 
Certainly,  they  supposed  it  was  something 
distinct  from  Christ  himself. 

35.  From  this  point  onward  Jesus  speaks 
of  himself  plainly  and  directly.  His  lan- 
guage is  extremely  bold  and  figurative,  but 
for  the  most  part  quite  intelligible.  I  am 
the  bread  of  life.  The  pronoun  I  is  em- 
phatic; and  by  the  bread  of  life  is  meant 
the  bread  which  gives  and  sustains  spiritual 
life — the  life  mentioned  in  ver.  33.  For  the 
Greek  word  meaning  life,  has  the  definite 
article  before  it.  He  that  cometh  to  me 
shall  never  (or  rather,  not)  hunger,  and  he 
that  believeth  on  me  shall  never  thirst. 
(Comp.  5:  40).  Coming  to  Christ  is  here 
equivalent  to  believing  in  Christ.  He  that 
cometh  to  me,  he  that  believeth  on  me — i.  e., 
any  person  who  can  be  thus  characterized, 
shall  have  the  satisfaction  promised.  Yet 
Schaff  attempts  to  distinguish  between  the 
faith  by  which  one  comes  to  Christ,  and 
subsequent  fsiith.  ^^Coming  to  Christ  is  fjiith 
indeed,  j'et  not  in  repose  as  mere  trust  and 
confidence,  or  as  a  state  of  mind,  but  in  active 
exercise  and  motion  from  the  service  of  sin  to 
the  service  of  Christ.     Comp.  37;  44,  45,  65; 


156 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VI. 


36  "But  I  said  unto  you,  that  ye  also  have  seen  me, 
and  believe  not. 

37  'AH  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me; 
and  '  him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  iio  wise  cast  out. 

38  For  I  came  down  from  heaven,  "^  not  to  do  mine 
ow  u  will,  «  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me. 

39  Ami  this  is  the  Father's  will  which  hath  sent  me, 
/that  of  all  which  he  hath  given  me  I  should  lose  noth- 
ing, but  should  raise  it  up  again  at  the  last  day. 


36  he  that  believeth  on  me  shall  never  thirst.     But  I 
said  unto  you,  that  ye  have  seen  me,  and  yet   be- 

37  lieve  not.     All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come 
unto  me;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no 

38  wise  cast  out.     For  1  am  come  down  from  heaven, 
not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the  will   of  him  that 

39  sent  me.    And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me, 
that  of  all  that  which  he  hath  given  me  I  should 

lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it  up  at  the  last  day. 


o  ver.  26,  64 h  ver.  45 c  Mau.  24:  24;  ch.  10:  2S.  29;  2  Tim.  2  :  19 ;  1  Jolin  2:  19. 

10:  28;  17:  12;  18:  9. 


.d  Malt.   26:  39;  ch.  5:  30 e  ch.  4  :  34..../ch. 


7:  37,  38."  Does  not  this  describe  one  aspect 
of  faith  through  all  the  conflict  of  this 
earthly  life?  Meyer,  Godet,  and  others,  agree 
with  the  interpretation  given  above.  "Where 
is  there  an  earthly  food  which  quiets  hunger 
and  thirst  forever?  Only  faith  in  Christ 
quiets  all  longings  and  satifies  all  real  needs  in 
life,  in  proportion  as  it  increases  and  becomes 
pure  in  the  longing,  needy  soul." — [Lucke.)^ 

36.  But  I  said  unto  you — in  the  words 
of   ver.   26 — that   ye   also  have    seen   me 

(better,  that  ye  have  even  seen  ine) — i.  e.,  acting 
as  the  Messiah,  doing  wonders  of  grace,  heal- 
ing the  sick,  feeding  the  multitude — and 
believe  not.  A  marvelous  contrast!  Clear 
evidence — and  no  faith  !  Compare  the  words 
of  Christ  to  Thomas,  20:  29. 

37.  All  that  the  Father  giveth  me 
shall  (or,  will)  come  to  me.  While  Christ 
perceives  that  most  of  the  people  who  encom- 
pass him  in  the  synagogue  are  earthly,  selfish, 
unbelieving,  and  ready  to  reject  him  as  soon 
as  he  disappoints  their  hopes,  he  is  sure  that 
all  whom  the  Father  giveth  him  bj^  the  in- 
ward working  of  his  grace,  will,  of  their  own 
accord  come  to  him  in  faith,  and  receive  him 
as  their  life.  The  holy  purpose  of  God  will 
not  therefore  be  defeated  by  the  sinful  in- 
credulity of  men.  All  whom  the  Father 
gives  will  be  the  Son's  at  last.  For  the  word 
all  (irai/)  expresses  totality  in  the  strongest 
manner,  viz.,  as  a  complete  whole,  as  one  body 
of  which  no  smallest  part  or  most  insignifi- 
cant member  will  be  wanting.  Saj^s  Bengel 
of  this  word:  '''' Vocabida  monientosissim.n. 
Words  of  the  greatest  importance.  The 
Father  hath  given  to  the  Son  the  whole  mass, 
as  it  were,  that  all  whom  he  has  given  may 
be  a  unit;  but,  in  execution  of  the  divine  plan, 
the   Son  evolves  that   whole,  one  by   one." 


1  For  the  use  of  the  aorist  subjunctive  with  oO  (iJ),  in 
a  future  sense.  See  Winer  §  60.  3.  Butmaun's  "  Gram, 
of  the  N.  T.  Greek,"  p.  212. 


And  him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no 
wise  cast  out— i.  e.,  out  of  my  kingdom, 
presence,  fellowship;  for  all  these  are  in- 
cluded. "  Every  one  who  comes  is  welcome." 
Previous  sin  does  not  prevent  acceptance. 
"The  negative  expression,"  says  Meyer,  "is 
a  loving  Litotes;  but  I  will  receive  him  with 
a  joyful  mind,  adds  Nonnus." 

38.  By  the  words  of  this  verse,  and  the 
two  following,  Jesus  assigns  the  reason  why 
he  will  thus  welcome  and  save  every  one  who 
believes.  His  own  will  is  one  with  the 
Father's  will,  and  it  is  the  Father's  will  that 
he  should  receive,  and  keep,  and  ssive  eter- 
nally all  that  the  Father  has  given  him.  For 
I  came  (or,  a?w  come)  down  from  heaven, 
not  to  do  mine  own  Avill,  but  the  will  of 
him  that  sent  me.  Compare  his  very 
similar  words  to  the  Pharisees  in  Jerusalem 
(5:30).  Notice,  also,  how  clearly  the  con- 
sciousness of  Jesus  connects  his  present  with 
his  original  life.  He  is  distinctly  aware  of 
having  come  down  from  (otto)  heaven  to 
earth,  when  he  entered  into  his  theanthropic 
state,  and  of  having  a  definite  purpose  to  ac- 
complish in  doing  this.  That  purpose,  what- 
ever else  may  be  said  of  it,  was  to  do  the  will 
of  him  by  whom  he  was  sent.  But  in  what 
did  that  will  consist?  How  could  the  Sent 
accomplish  the  will  of  the  Sender?  A  partial, 
if  not  a  full,  answer  to  this  question  is  given 
by  the  next  words  of  Jesus  himself. 

39.  And  this  is  the  Father's  will  which 
hath  sent  me,  that  of  all  which  he  hath 
given  me  I  should  lose  nothing,  but 
should  raise  it  up  again  at  the  last  day. 
The  word  Father  is  not  sufficiently  authenti- 
cated. We  should,  therefore,  read,  as  in  the 
Rev.  Ver.,  the  will  of  him.  Note  (1)  that 
the  word  translated  all  is  the  same  as  in  ver. 
37,  and  its  meaning  unchanged.  (2)  That 
the  verb  hath  given  unites  the  past  with  the 
present.  The  act  of  giving  is  conceived  of  as 
in  progress  from  eternity,  or  as  abiding  in  its 


Ch.  VI.] 


JOHN. 


157 


•  40  And  this  is  the  will  of  hiiu  that  sent  me,  "that 
every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him, 
may  have  everlasting  life :  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at 
the  last  day. 

41  The  Jews  then  murmured  at  him,  because  he  said, 
I  am  the  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven. 


40  For  this  is  the  will  of  my  Father,  that  every  one 
that  belioldeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him.siiould 
have  eternal  life;  and  'I  will  raise  him  up  at  the 
last  day. 

41  The  .Jews  therefore  murmured  concerning  him,  be- 
cause he  said,  I  am  the  bread  that  came  down  out  of 


a  ver.  27,  47,  54  j  oh.  .3  :  15, 16 ;  4 :  14. 1  Or,  That  I  ehould  raise  him  up. 


force  and  effect  down  to  the  present  time. 
(3)  That  Jesus  makes  it  the  will  of  the  Sender 
that  no  part  or  member  of  the  whole  given  to 
liim  should  be  lost.  Here  is  the  preservation 
of  the  saints  by  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ. 
Infinite  grace !  But  he  who  makes  it  an  ex- 
cuse for  spiritual  sloth,  has  reason  to  fear  that 
he  has  no  part  in  Christ.  (4)  "Whoever  is 
ke[)t  by  the  Saviour,  will,  also,  be  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  him  at  the  last  day. 
There  is,  then,  a  last  day,  when  Christ  will  re- 
tiH'n  in  glory  to  judge  the  world.  Till  that 
day,  the  bodies  of  the  saints  will  sleep  in  the 
dust  of  the  earth.  (Comp.  5  :  29).  But  then 
they  will  be  raised  incorruptible,  glorious, 
and  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  spirit.  Christ 
will  thus  effect  the  salvation  of  the  whole  man. 
"Note  the  recurrence  of  this  blessed  refrain 
in  ver.  40,  44,  54,  which  Scholten,  in  spite  of 
this  solemn  recurrence,  considers  a  gloss."  — 
Mei/er. 

40.  Instead  of,  And  this   is  the  Avill  of 
him  that  sent  me,  read.  For  this  is  the  will 
of  my  Father.     The  best  editors  give  the  text 
we  have  translated,  substituting  for  for  and, 
and  my  Father  for  him  that  sent  me.  Hence, 
the  statement  of  this  verse  is  co-ordinate  with 
that  of  ver.  39,  showing  why  Jesus  will  save 
those  who  believe  in   him,  as  the  preceding 
statement  showed  why  he  would  save  those 
given  him.     In  both  cases,  it  is  the  Father's 
will  which  is  fulfilled  by  his  action.     That 
every  one   which    (who)    seeth  the    Son. 
The  word  rendered  seeth  (Seupii')  means  to 
look  at,  to  behold,  implying  a  voluntary  direc- 
tion of  the  eye,  or  mind  (or  of  both),  to  the 
object  seen.     Earnest  consideration  precedes 
faith.     And  believeth  on  him.     Belief  in- 
cludes trust.   (See  the  note  on  ver.  29).     May 
(or,  should)  have  everlasting  life.  'That  is, 
should  have  it  even  here,  and   not  merely 
in    some    other  and  future    state  of  being. 
Eternal  life  begins  with  trust  in  Christ,  and 
culminates  in  the  blessedness  of  union  with 
him  in  the  life  to  come.     The  soul  and  body 
will  be  glorified  together,  and  forever.   (Comp. 
John  17:  3).     Notice,  also,  the  refrain  of  the 


last  clause.  There  will  be  a  resurrection  of 
the  body,  as  there  is  a  resurrection  of  the 
spirit;  the  resurrection  of  the  body  will  be  at 
the  last  day;  and  this  resurrection  will  be 
effected  by  "the  Son,"  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 
Jesus  did  not  leave  his  hearers  in  doubt  re- 
specting his  personal  distinction  from  the  Fa- 
ther, his  absolute  unity  of  will  and  action 
with  the  Father,  or  their  dependence  on  him- 
self for  true  life,  here  and  hereafter.  The 
miracle  which  he  had  wrought  the  day  before, 
and  the  reference  which  the  people  had  made 
to  the  manna,  furnished  an  occasion  for  this 
most  wonderful  unfolding  of  his  office  and 
work;  and  he  was  prompt  in  making  use  of 
the  occasion.  Yet  how  few  were  jjrepared  to 
welcome  the  truth!  For  the  effect  of  his 
words  on  a  part  of  his  hearers  is  described  in 
ver.  41,  by  which  the  Evangelist  passes  on 
to  another  dialogue. 

41-44.  Second  Dialogue  in  the  Syna- 
gogue AT  Capernaum. 

41.  The  Jews  then  (or,  therefore)  mur- 
mured at  (or,  concerning)  him,  because  he 
said,  I  am  the  bread  which  came  down 
from  heaven.  By  the  Jews,  may  be  meant 
the  Pharisaic  part  of  the  multitude — those  who 
were  specially  zealous  for  the  law,  and  sus- 
picious of  innovation — people  of  note  and  in- 
fluence, representing  the  Jewish  spirit  of  the 
day.  For  the  expression  has  this  meaning  in 
many  passages  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  These 
Jews  were  now  speaking  with  one  another  in 
a  low  voice,  without  intending  their  words  fur 
the  ear  of  Christ.  To  bring  the  scene,  as  he 
recalls  it,  to  the  mind  of  his  readers,  the  Evan- 
gelist employs  the  imperfect,  or  descriptive, 
tense  of  the  verb.  And  from  what  they  were 
saying,  rather  than  from  the  import  of  the 
verb,  to  murmur,  it  appears  that  they  were 
displeased  with  the  utterances  of  Jesus,  and, 
in  particular,  with  his  assertion  :  I  am  the 
bread  which  came  down  from  heaven. 
For  they  understood  him  to  claim,  by  this 
assertion,  an  origin  different  from  that  of 
other  men. 


158 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VI. 


42  And  they  said,  "Is  not  this  Jesus,  tlie  son  of 
Joseph,  whose  fatlier  and  mother  we  know?  how  is  it 
then  that  he  saith,  I  came  down  from  heaven  ? 

43  Je-iLis  therefore  answered  and  said  unto  them, 
Murmur  not  among  yourselves. 

44  'No  man  can  come  to  me,  except  the  Father  which 
hatli  sent  me  draw  him:  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the 
last  day. 


42  down  out  of  heaven.  And  they  said,  Is  not  this 
Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother 
we  know?  how  doth  he  now  say,  I  am  come  down 

43  out  of  heaven  ?    Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them, 

44  Murmur  not  among  yourselves.  No  man  can  come 
to  me  except  the  Father  that  sent  me  draw  him : 


;  Matt.  13  :  55  ;  Mark  6:3;  Luke  4 :  22 b  Cant.  1:4;  ver.  65. 


42.  And  they  said  (or,  we7'e  saying) — sotto 
voce — Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of  Jo- 
seph, whose  father  and  mother  we  know  ? 

This  language  might  have  been  used  honestly 
by  excited  and  captious  men,  though  their 
knowledge  depended  on  nothing  but  common 
report.  They  were  iti  a  state  of  mind  to  put 
the  case  strongly,  and  could  not  be  e.vpected 
to  hesitate  in  claiming  knowledge  of  that 
which  they  wished  to  believe,  and  which  was 
affirmed  without  contradiction  by  the  people 
of  that  region.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  safely 
inferred  that  they  were  personally  acquainted 
with  the  reputed  parents  of  Jesus,  or  that  Jo- 
seph, as  well  as  Mary,  was  still  alive. — (Meyer). 
HoAV  is  it  then  that  he  saith,  I  came  down 
from  heaven  ?  Important  earl^'  manuscripts 
read  now  (vvv),  instead  of  then  (ouv),  and  still 
moreof  them  omit  the  pronoun  (oCtos),  which  is 
translated  he,  but  should  have  been  translated 
this  man.  The  Eevised  Version  may  be  fol- 
lowed safely  :  How  doth  he  now  say,  lam  com,e 
down  outof  heaven  ?  Now,  that  is,  after  he  has 
been  so  long  known  as  the  son  of  Joseph  and 
Mary.  How  can  he,  at  this  late  hour,  make 
such  a  claim  ?  The  question  is  expressive  of 
unbelief,  rather  than  of  perplexitj'.  In  his 
reply,  Jesus  recognizes  this  spirit  of  unbelief, 
though  he  does  not  refer  to  the  point  on  which 
the  Jews  had  fixed  their  attention.  The  words 
from  heaven  are  a  correct  rendering  of  the 
Greek  expression  (an-b  toO  olpavov)  found  in  ver. 
38;  but  the  Greek  expression  here  employed 
(«  ToO  oCpavoO)  would  be  represented  more  ex- 
actly by  the  words  out  of  heaven. 

43,  44.  The  MSS.  are  about  equally  di- 
vided for  and  against  the  connective  {ovv) 
then  of  the  Common  Version.  It  should, 
probably,  be  omitted.  But  the  meaning  is 
nearly  the  same,  whether  the  word  is  retained 
or  rejected.  No  man  can  come  to  me,  ex- 
cept the  Father  which  hath  sent  me 
(rather,  who  sent  me)  draw  him.  The  ina- 
bility to  come  to  Christ,  which  is  here  affirmed 
of  every  man,  left  to  himself,  is  intrinsically 
moral,  and  may  be  identified  with  unwilling- 


ness or  disinclination.  The  sinner  cannot, 
because  he  will  not.  The  very  strength  and 
freedom  of  his  will  are  his  weakness,  because 
they  keep  him  away  from  Christ.  Hence,  the 
Father's  drawing  is  a  condition  of  his  willing 
to  come.  Says  Augustine:  "No  one  comes 
unless  drawn.  .  .  But  some  man  may  say:  If 
one  is  drawn,  he  comes  unwillingly.  .  .  (An- 
swer): If  he  comes  unwillingly,  he  does  not 
believe;  and  if  he  does  not  believe,  he  does 
not  come.  For  we  approach  Christ,  not  by 
walking,  but  by  believing;  not  by  motion  of 
body,  but  by  choice  of  heart.  .  .  .  Do  not 
think  that  you  are  drawn  against  your  will ; 
the  soul  is  drawn,  and  by  love."  As  to  the 
mode  of  the  Father's  drawing,  Calvin  remarks 
that  "  it  is  not  a  violent  drawing,  which  com- 
pels man  by  an  external  force,  but  an  effica- 
cious motion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  ren- 
ders unwilling  persons  willing."  Meyer  de- 
scribes this  drawing  as  "««  inward  pressing 
and  guiding  to  Christ,  by  the  loorking  of  God's 
grace,"  and  as  "the  whole  divine  influence 
by  which  the  hearts  of  men  are  won  to  the 
Son."  But  he  is  careful  to  say  that  this  di- 
vine influence  "does  not  destroy  human  free- 
dom" ;  while  he  concedes  that  "  it  appears  to 
the  consciousness  of  those  who  have  been  won 
as  a  holy  necessity,  which  they  have  followed." 
SchaflT  seems  to  distinguish  between  this  draw- 
ing of  the  Father  and  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  regeneration;  for  he  says:  "No 
change  of  mental  organization,  no  new  faculty 
is  required,  but  a  radical  change  of  the  heart 
and  will.  This  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost; 
but  the  providential  drawing  of  the  Father 
prepares  the  way  for  it."  Yet  he  declares 
that  the  latter  "expresses  the  mighty  moral 
power  of  the  infinite  love  of  the  Father,  who 
so  orders  and  overrules  the  aft'airs  of  life,  and 
so  acts  upon  our  hearts,  that  we  give  up  at 
last  our  natural  aversion  to  holiness,  and 
willingly,  cheerfully,  and  thankfully  embrace 
the  Saviour  as  the  gift  of  gifts  for  our  salva- 
tion." When  this  is  done,  is  not  the  man  al- 
ready "a  new  creature,"  already  born  of  the 


Ch.  VI.] 


JOHN. 


159 


45  « It  is  written  in  the  prophets.  And  they  shall  be 
all  taught  of  God.  '  Every  man  tlierefore  that  hath 
heard,  and  hath  learned  of  the  Father,  couieth  unto 
uie. 

46  ''Not  that  any  man  hath  seen  the  Father,  ■'save 
he  which  is  of  God,  he  hath  seen  the  Father. 


45  and  I  will  raise  him  up  in  the  last  day.  It  is  written 
in  the  prophets.  And  they  shall  all  he  taught  of  God. 
Every  one  that  hath  heaiil  from  the  Father,  and  hath 

46  learned,  cometh  uuto  me.  Not  that  any  man  hath 
seen  the  Father,  save  he  that  is  from  God,  he  hath 


Isa.  54  :  13  ;  Jer.  31 :  34 ;  Mio.  4 :  2  ;  Heb.  8 :  10  j  10 :  16 6 


Spirit?  It  is  better,  then,  to  understand  the 
Father's  drawing  in  the  most  comprehensive 
sense,  as  embracing  the  influence  of  divine 
providence,  religious  truth,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  working  on  the  heart;  but  especially- 
and  pre-eminently  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  for,  doubtless,  the  attractive  power  of 
all  these  precedes  and  conditions  the  exercise 
of  true  faith.  For  the  use  of  the  word  trans- 
lated draw  (cAicuw)  in  the  New  Testament,  see 
John  12:  32;  21:  6,  11;  Acts  16:  19;  Jas.  2:  6. 
Notice,  also,  how  Jesus  affirms,  in  the  last 
clause,  that  he  will  raise  up,  at  the  last  day, 
the  man  who  comes  to  him  through  the  Fa- 
ther's drawing.  The  beginning  is  declared  to 
be  the  beginning  of  a  glorious  end.  He  that 
is  justified  will  also  be  glorified.  (Rom.  8:3o).  In- 
ference: It  is  sometimes  wise  to  preach  the 
doctrine  of  the  actual  dependence  of  sinners 
on  the  grace  of  God  to  those  who  are  still  in 
sin,  and  especially  to  those  who  are  conceited 
and  self-sufficient  in  spiritual  things. 

45.  It  is  written  in  the  prophets.  The 
perfect  tense  of  the  Greek  verb  is  used  because, 
while  the  act  of  writing  was  finished  in  the 
past,  the  result  of  the  act  is  thought  of  as 
present  in  the  written  word.  And  this  present 
result,  existing  in  the  sacred  record,  is  doubt- 
less the  most  prominent  fact.  Hence  the 
Common  Version,  It  is  written,  may  be  re- 
ceived as  measurably  satisfactor3^  In  the 
prophets,  probably  because  the  passage  is 
commended  to  the  people  as  one  that  may  be 
found  in  the  collection  of  sacred  writings 
called  by  them  "the  prophets"  (comp.  Matt. 
5 :  17  ;  Luke  24 :  44) ;  yet,  possibly  because 
the  substance  of  it  may  be  found  in  several 

places    (Isa.  54:  13;  Jer.  31:33;  Joel  3:1).       Anil    they 

shall  be  all  taught  of  God — or,  Andallivill 
be  taught  of  God.  (See  Isa.  54:  13.)  The 
original  prophecy  is  descriptive  of  the  true 
people  of  God  in  the  Messianic  day.  It  is 
translated  by  Alexander:  "And  all  thj' 
children  disciples  of  Jehovah."  He  observes  : 
"The  promise  is  not  one  of  occasional  in- 
struction, but  of  permanent  connection  with 


Jehovah  as  his  followers,  and  partakers  of  his 
constant  teaching.  That  the  words  are  ap- 
plicable to  the  highest  teaching  of  which  any 
rational  being  is  susceptible,  to  wit :  that  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  making  known  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  we  have  our  Saviour's  own  au- 
thority for  stating."  The  original  passage, 
as  well  as  the  present  context,  limits  the 
word  all  to  those  who  come  in  fact  to  Christ 
and  are  his  genuine  disciples.  And  the  word 
taught,  which  is  the  principal  and  emphatic 
word,  is  broad  enough  to  comprehend  all 
experience  of  divine  grace,  whether  that  grace 
is  imparted  by  the  direct  influence  of  the 
Spirit  on  the  soul,  or  by  the  operation  of 
divine  truth.  "The  children  of  the  Messi- 
anic time  are  the  'all,'  from  the  fact  that  an 
inward,  immediate  divine  illumination  gives 
them  faith  in  the  word  spoken  by  Christ."  — 
(Lange).  To  what  extent,  if  at  all,  the  draw- 
ing of  the  Father,  or  the  teaching  of  God, 
may  be  predicated  of  those  who  never  come  to 
Christ,  cannot  be  learned  from  this  passage. 
Every  man  (or,  one)  that  hath  heard  and 
hath  learned  of  the  Father,  cometh  unto 
me.  An  expression  which  seems  to  prove  that 
Christ  has  in  mind  none  but  his  true  fol- 
lowers, while,  at  the  same  time,  it  brings  to 
view  the  reciprocal  agency  of  man.  For  no 
one  can  hear  and  learn  without  action  of  his 
own.  And  the  instant  any  man  apprehends 
divine  truth  aright,  he  will  believe  in  Christ, 
or,  in  other  words,  will  come  to  him. 

46.  Not  that  any  man  (or,  one)  hath  seen 
the  Father,  save  he  Avhich  is  of  (z.  e., 
from)  God ;  he  (or,  this  one)  hath  seen  the 
Father.  The  object  of  these  words  must  be 
sought,  not  in  the  general  negation,  but  in 
the  exceptional  affirmation.  For  the  Jews 
were  in  no  danger  of  supposing  that  every 
one  who  had  heard  and  learned  from  God 
had  seen  the  Father,  but  they  were,  perhaps, 
in  great  danger  of  imagining  that  Jesus  could 
add  little  or  nothing  to  the  knowledge  of  men 
who  had  been  "taught  of  God."  He,  there- 
fore, reminds  them  of  the  world-wide  distinc- 


160 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VI. 


47  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  "He  that  believeth 
on  me  tiath  everlasting  life. 

48  *  I  am  that  bread  of  life. 

49  "Your  fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the  wilderness, 
and  are  dead. 

50  ''This  is  the  bread  which  couieth  down  from 
heaven,  that  a  man  may  eat  thereof,  and  not  die. 

51  I  am  the  living  bread  "which  came  down  from 
heaven :  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for 
ever:  and /the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  which 
I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world. 


47  seen  the  Father.    Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He 

48  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life.    I  am  the  bread  of 

49  life.    Your  fathers  did  eat  the  manna  in  the  wilder- 

50  ness,  and  they  died.  This  is  the  bread  that  cometh 
dowu  out  of  heaven,  that  a  man  may  eat  thereof,  and 

51  not  die.  I  am  the  living  bread  that  came  down 
out  of  heaven :  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  lie  shall 
live  for  ever :  yea  and  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is 
my  flesh,  for  the  life  of  the  world. 


ach.  3:  1«,  18,  36;  ver.  40 6  ver.  33,  35 c  ver.  31 d  ver.  51,  58 e  ch.  3:  13 /Heb.  10:  5,  10. 


tion  between  the  knowledge  of  one  who  has 
never  seen  the  Father,  and  of  one  who  has 
been  with  him  in  the  upper-world  and  has 
known  him  by  direct  and  perfect  vision. 
(Comp.  1 :  18 ;  7 :  29 ;  Matt.  11 :  27).  Thus,  by 
way  of  contrast,  he  brings  back  to  their 
minds  the  amazing  fact  that  he  is  truly  and 
literally  from  heaven,  from  with  the  Father 
(comp.  Note  on  1 :  14),  while  at  the  same  time 
he  cautions  them  against  a  gross,  earthly  in- 
terpretation of  his  claim  to  be  "the  bread 
which  came  down  from  heaven."  (ver. «). 
He  is  bread  to  the  soul  rather  than  to  the 
body — a  source  of  light  and  life,  of  knowl- 
edge concerning  God  and  communion  with 
God,  rather  than  of  any  material  blessing. 
Hence  the  next  verse. 

47.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you:  He 
that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting 
(or,  eternal)  life.  Notice  (1)  the  absolute 
authority  and  earnestness  given  to  the  prin- 
cipal sentence  b^'  the  prefatory  words  ;  (2)  the 
supreme  importance  of  faith  in  Christ,  and  (3) 
the  assertion  that  the  possession  of  faith  pre- 
supposes or  involves  the  new  life.  One  does 
not  truly  believe  in  Christ  in  order  to  regen- 
eration, but  in  and  by  regeneration ;  so  that 
when  he  believes  he  has  eternal  life  in  posses- 
sion, and  not  merely  in  prospect.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  supreme  drawing  of  the  Father, 
by  the  regenerating  influence  of  the  Spirit, 
conditions  the  exercise  of  saving  fivith.  (See 
ver.  44).  It  must  be  added,  that  some  critical 
editors  omit  the  words  on  me,  after  be- 
lieveth. The  words  were  probably  a  part  of 
the  original  text;  but  if  not,  they  appear  to 
interpret  correctly  the  meaning  of  Christ; 
for,  according  to  the  context,  the  faith  whicli 
he  refers  to  must  be  a  faith  looking  towards 
and  resting  in  himself 

48.  I  am  that  (or,  the)  bread  of  life— 
literally,  of  the  life—i.  e.,  the  life  just  named, 
eternal  life,  which  is  life  in  the  highest  sense 
— moral,  religious,  blessed,  everlasting.     This 


life,  which  is  one  of  conscious  peace,  liberty, 
love,  and  fellowship  with  God,  begins  with 
trust  in  Christ,  with  a  true  and  hearty  recep- 
tion of  him  as  the  Saviour  of  men.  By  thus 
receiving  him  the  soul  feeds  on  bread  that  is 
a  source  of  spiritual  joy  and  strength,  on 
bread  that  gives,  nourishes,  and  sustains,  the 
highest  and  holiest  activity.  (Comp.  ver.  33, 
35).  The  genitive  of  life  (t^s  ^w^s)  is  that  of 
attribute  or  quality. 

49.  The  manna,  though  a  gift  from  God, 
was  but  corruptible  food  for  a  corrujitible 
body :  your  fathers  ate  of  it  in  the  wilderness 
and  died.  And  this  is  what  you  extol !  How 
diflerent  from  the  bread  of  which  I  speak ! 
See  the  Revised  Version  above  for  an  exact 
rendering  of  this  verse. 

50.  This  is  the  bread  which  cometh 
down  from  heaven,that  a  man  (or,  one)  may 
eat  thereof  and  not  die.  And,  therefore, 
utterly  diflerent  in  its  design  and  effect  from 
the  manna.  To  eat  of  it  is  to  be  delivered 
from  death ;  otherwise  the  very  end  for  which  it 
comes  must  fail.  "  This  bread  from  heaven  is 
life-giving  and  death-destroying "^(Hanna). 
"  To  be  sure  it  does  not  do  away  with  earthly 
death,  but,  as  it  secures  eternal  life,  earthly 
death  becomes  only  a  transition  to  a  life  with- 
out death." — Liicke. 

51.  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came 
down  from  heaven.  After  examination, 
Liicke  concludes  that  the  word  "  living,"  in 
such  expressions  as  "the  living  Father,"  "the 
living  water,"  "the  living  bread,"  is  meant 
tosignif}^  that  which  is  spiritual,  ever-during, 
imperishable,  and  heavenly,  in  contrast  with 
that  which  is  earthly,  perishable,  and  unsub- 
stantial." But  we  do  not  think  he  has  touched 
the  precise  thought  of  the  Saviour.  By  liv- 
ing bread,  the  Lord  here  means  bread  that 
has  life  in  itself  (comp.  5:  26),  and  may, 
therefore,  impart  life.  For  only  the  living 
can  be  an  original  source  of  life.  A  being 
cannot  give  what  it  does  not  possess.     It  may 


Ch.  VL] 


JOHN. 


161 


52  The  Jews  therefore  "strove  among  themselves, 
saying,  *  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat '! 

53  Tlien  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
uoto  you,  Except  "ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Sou  of  man, 
and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you. 


52  The  Jews  therefore  strove  one  with  another,  say- 

53  ing.  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  ?  Jesus 
therefore  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  1  say  unto 
you,  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Sou  of  man  and 


tcb.  7:  43;  9;  16;  10;  19 6  oh.  3:9 c  Matt.  26:  26,  28. 


also  be  observed  tbat  Jesus  refers  to  his  com- 
ing down  from  heaven  as  a  definite  event  of 
the  past,  meaning,  no  doubt,  his  incarnation. 
If  any  man  (or,  otie)  eat  of  this  bread,  he 
shall  live  forever.  For  the  principle  of  true 
life  is  in  it,  and,  therefore,  by  receiving  it,  he 
will  pass  from  a  state  of  spiritual  death  into  a 
state  of  spiritual  life.  And  this  life-state,  or 
blessed  communion  with  God  in  Christ,  will 
have  no  end.  "Observe  the  threefold  prog- 
ress :  (1)  'the bread  of  life'(ver. 48),  and  the  'liv- 
ing bread'  (ver. 51);  (2)  the  general  'is  coming 
down'  (ver. 50),  and  the  historical  concrete, 
'came  down'  (ver. 51);  (3)  the  negative  'may 
not  die'  (ver. 50),  and  the  positive  'shall  live 
forever'  (ver. 51)." — (Meyer).  And  the  bread, 
etc.  The  last  part  of  the  verse  is  given  more 
clearly  by  the  Revised  Version:  Vea,  and 
the  bread  which  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  for 
the  life  of  the  world.  The  paragraph  begin- 
ning with  this  clause,  and  ending  with  ver. 
58,  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  in  the  whole 
Gospel,  partly  on  account  of  its  connection 
with  the  foregoing,  partly  on  account  of  the 
figurative  e.Ypression  of  the  thoughts,  and 
partly  on  account  of  the  relationship  of  these 
thoughts  to  the  principal  ideas  symbolized  by 
the  Lord's  Supper.  What,  then,  are  we  to 
understand  by  the  words  my  flesh?  That 
they  might  have  been  used  by  the  Saviour  in 
certain  connections  to  denote  his  human  na- 
ture and  manifestation,  without  any  reference 
to  his  death,  is  freely  conceded.  (See  1 :  14  ; 
17:  2;  Matt.  24:  22;  Rom.  1:  3;  9:  5).  But 
there  are  two  insuperable  objections  to  this  in- 
terpretation of  the  words  here :  (1)  The  dis- 
tinction which  is  made  between  flesh  and 
blood  in  ver.  53,  a  distinction  which  evidently 
presupposes  a  separation  of  the  flesh  and  blood 
by  death ;  and  (2)  the  connected  words  will 
give — for  the  life  of  the  world,  for  the  us2is 
loquendi  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
shows  that  this  phraseology  refers  to  the  aton- 
ing death  of  Christ.  (See  Matt.  20:  28;  Luke 
22:  19;  1  Cor.  13:  3;  Gal.  1:  4;  2:  20;  Eph. 
5:  2,  25;  1  Tim.  2:  6.)  It  is,  therefore,  evi- 
dent that  Jesus  speaks  of  giving  up  his  human 


nature  to  death  for  the  life  of  the  world. 
(Comp.  Eph.  2:  15;  Col.  1  :  22;  Heb.  10:  2,); 
1  Pet.  2:  24;  4:  1).  Hence,  the  lesson  of  this 
clause  is,  that  the  true  life  of  man  depends  on 
faith  in  the  Saviour  crucified,  on  spiritual 
union  with  "<Ae  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world."  (i: '^9).  Such  a 
truth  was  not  likely  to  be  welcomed  by  the 
self-righteous  hearers  of  Jesus.^ 
52-59.    Hence,  the  Third  Conver.sa- 

TION. 

52.  The  Jews  therefore  strove  among 
themselves  (or,  were  debating  with  one  anoth- 
er), saying.  How  can  this  man  give  us  his 
(or,  the)  flesh  to  eat?  Namely,  the  flesh 
which  he  speaks  of— his  own  flesh?  Liicke 
remarks  that  the  circumstance  of  the  Jews 
contending  with  one  another  how  Jesus  could 
give  them  his  flesh  to  eat,  shows  that  his  lan- 
guage was  not  altogether  unintelligible.  It 
doubtless  perplexed  them  by  suggesting  that 
his  death  was  in  some  way  indispensable  to 
their  highest  life;  a  view  utterly  foreign  to 
their  Messianic  aspirations. 

53.  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the 
Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye 
have  no  life  in  you.  Instead  of  under- 
taking to  remove  their  difficulty  by  explaining 
the  figurative  language  which  he  had  used, 
Jesus  solemnly  repeats  it,  with  a  startling 
addition.  Startling,  if  they  understood  his 
language  to  be  literal ;  but  only  bold  and  im- 
pressive if  they  understood  it  to  be  figurative. 
He  may  have  taken  this  course  because  he 
saw  that  their  spirit  was  not  serious  but  cap- 
tious, or  because  he  saw  that  no  explanation 
was  really  needed.  For  the  added  statement, 
and  drink  his  blood,  must  have  strongly 
tended  to  convince  "the  Jews"  that  his  lan- 
guage was  figurative.  While  it  presupposes, 
even  more  certainly  than  his  previous  decla- 
ration, that  his  death  was  the  condition  of 
life  to  men,  it  is  a  warning  against  a  literal 

1  With  the  critical  editors,  Lach.,  Tisch.,  Treg.,  West- 
cott,  and  Hort.,  we  omit  riv  iyta  SJxrio,  wblcb  I  will 
give,  after  crapf  /nou,  my  flesli. 


162 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VI. 


54  "Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood, 
hath  eternal  life :  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 

55  For  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed, and  my  blood  is  drink 
indeed. 

56  He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood, 
*dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him. 

57  As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by 
the  Father ;  so  he  that  eateth  me,  even  he  shall  live  by 
me. 


54  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  not  life  in  yourselves.  He 
that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  "my  blood  hath 

53  eternal  life;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 
For  my  flesh  is  -  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  -  drink 

56  indeed.     He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my 

57  blood  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him.  As  the  living 
Father  sent  me,  and  I  live  because  of  the  Feather ;  so 
he   that  eateth  me,  he  also  shall   live  because  of 


ver.  27,  40,  63;  ch.  4  :  14.... 6  1  John  3  :  24  ;  4:  15,  10. Gr.  true  meat -J  Gr.  true  drink. 


interpretation  of  the  words  employed.  For 
the  Jews  were  sometimes  required  to  eat  the 
flesh  of  animals  slain  for  sacrifice,  but  they 
were  never  allowe<i  to  drink  their  blood. 
Much  less,  then,  could  they  imagine  that 
Jesus  meant  to  enjoin  a  literal  eating  of  his 
own  human  flesh,  and  a  literal  drinking  of 
his  own  blood.  The  very  boldness  of  Christ's 
language  admonished  them  not  to  interpret  it 
literally.  If  eating  his  flesh  would  naturally 
suggest  faith  in  him  as  one  who  was  to  die  for 
tlie  life  of  the  world,  still  more  must  drinking 
his  blood  suggest  the  same  thing.  For  the 
life  was  conceived  to  be  in  the  blood,  and 
shed  blood  was  the  well-known  emblem  of 
life  surrendered  in  death.  On  the  whole, 
then,  it  is  probable  that  the  Jews  were  better 
able  to  understand,  than  they  were  to  receive, 
the  teaching  of  Jesus. 

54.  Whoso  (or,  he  that)  eateth  my  flesh 
and  drinketh  my  bIood,i  hath  eternal 
life.  Having  said  in  ver.  53  that  there  is  no 
true  life  for  man  without  doing  this,  he  now 
says  that  eternal  life  is  the  present  possession 
of  him  who  does  this.  No  man  can  be  saved 
in  any  other  way;  no  man  can  be  lost  who 
takes  this  way.  These  statements  comple- 
ment each  other  and  cover  the  whole  ground. 
And  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 
The  life  which  begins  by  a  renewal  of  the 
spirit  shall  be  perfected  by  a  renewal  of  the 
body,  so  that  the  whole  man  will  be  saved 
and  glorified.     (Compare  ver.  40,  44). 

55.  For  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed  (better, 
is  true  food),  and  my  blood  is  drink 
indeed  (or,  true  drink). 

The  reading  (aXrjSi)?)  true,  instead  of  (aAjiJi?) 
truly  or  indeed,  is  given  by  the  best  editors, 
and  is  doubtless  correct.  True  food  is  food 
which  performs  what  it  promises.  It  is, 
according  to  Meyer,  "the  opposite  of  merely 

1 "  The  tense  (6  rpuyiov)  (whoso  eateth)  or,  contrast 
ver.  45  (o  oKoiicras)  {he  that  hath  heard),  marks  an  action 
which  must  be  continuous  and  not  completed  once  for 
&n."—{Wcstcott.) 


seeming  or  nominal  food,  hence  real  food." 
And  for  this  reason  {ydp),  he  that  eats  the 
same,  etc.,  hath  eternal  life.  Of  course  it 
is  food  for  the  inner  man,  not  for  the  body  ; 
the  latter  will  die,  but  be  raised  in  glory  at 
the  last  day. 

56.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and 
drinketh  my  blood  dwelleth  (or,  abideth) 
in  me,  and  I  in  him.  Meyer  appeals  to 
the  language  of  this  verse  as  proof  that  "  the 
eating  and  drinking  in  question  are  uninter- 
rupted," continuous,  and  infers  from  this, 
"that  Jesus  could  not  have  had  in  mind  the 
Holy  Supper."  The  last  part  of  the  verse, 
abideth  in  me  and  I  in  him,  manifestly 
refers  to  spiritual  fellowship  or  intercom- 
munion (Comp.  15:  4  sq. ;  17;  23;  1  John 
3:  24;  4:  16),  and  aflTords,  therefore,  clear 
evidence  that  the  terms  eateth  and  drinketh 
are  used  figuratively,  to  denote  the  exercise 
of  faith ;  while  the  terms  flesh  and  blood, 
refer  to  Christ  as  the  "propitiation"  (iAoa/nos) 
for  the  sins  of  mankind  (i  John  2 : 2). 

57.  As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me, 
and  I  live  by  (rather,  because  of)  the  Fa- 
ther; so  he  that  eateth  me,  even  he  shall 
live  by  (or,  because  of)  me.  (1)  Jesus  here 
speaks  of  himself  as  the  Son  of  man,  the  Mes- 
siah, and  not  as  the  Word  that  was  with  God. 
(1:1).  (2)  The  life  which  he  ascribes  to  the 
Father,  to  himself,  and  to  the  believer,  is  not 
mere  conscious  existence,  but  life  in  the  very 
highest  sense  of  the  word,  the  true  and  blessed 
life  of  amoral  being.  (3)  His  own  life,  in  this 
highest  sense,  is  represented  as  due  to  perfect 
fellowship  with  the  Father  who  sent  him,  and 
who  shows  him  all  that  he  himself  doeth. 
(5:  i9sq.\.  "It  is  becau.«e  of  the  holy  and  ever 
blessed  Father,"  says  Christ,  "that  I  am  al- 
ways joyful  in  Ti\y  work,  and  certain  that  it 
cannot  fail."  (4)  A  similar  life  will  be  the 
portion  of  every  one  who  receives  Christ  into 
his  heart  bj'  true  fiiith.  According  to  the 
measure  of  his  faith,  will  Christ  be  to  him 
what  the  Father  is  to  Christ — aground  of  con- 


Ch.  VI.] 


JOHN. 


163 


58  "This  is  that  bread  which  came  down  from 
heaven:  not  as  your  fathers  did  eat  manna,  and  are 
dead :  he  that  eateth  of  this  l)r('ad  shall  live  for  ever. 

,')9  These  things  said  he  in  the  synagogue,  as  he 
taught  in  Capernaum. 

60  '  Many  therefore  of  his  disciples,  when  they  had 
heard  this,  said.  This  is  a  hard  saying ;  who  can  hear  it  ? 

61  When  Jesus  knew  in  himself  that  liis  disciples 
murmured  at  it,  he  said  unto  them,  Dotli  this  ottend 
you  ? 


58  me.  This  is  the  bread  that  came  down  out  of 
heaven:  not  as  the  fathers  did  eat,  and  died:  he  that 

59  eateth  this  bread  shall  live  for  ever.  These  things 
said  he  in  ifhe  synagogue,  as  he  taught  in  Caper- 
naum. 

GO  Many  therefore  of  his  disciples,  when  they  heard 
this,  said,  This  is  a  hard  saying;  who  can  hear  2 it? 

61  But  Jesus  knowing  in  himself  that  his  disciples 
murmured  at  this,  said  unto  them.  Doth  this  cause 


I  vcr.  49,  50,  51 6  Matt.  11:6;  ver.  66. 1  Or,  a  synagogue 2  Or,  7j!ot. 


fidence,  a  source  of  light,  a  fountain  of  joy. 
These  are  the  principal  points.     But  Meyer 
has  two  remarks  worthy  of  note  :   "  {a}  that  (6 
rpiuyuv  ixe)  'he  that  eateth  me,'  expresses  a  con- 
stant, uninterrupted  relation,    not   one   that 
comes  in  from  time  to  time,  as  at  the  Lord's 
8upper";  and  (b)  that,   "if  Jesus  had  been 
thinking  of  the  Holy  Supper,  he  would  not 
have  said,  'he  that  eateth  me,'  but,  rather,  'he 
that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood.'  " 
58.  Not  as  your  fathers  did  eat  manna, 
and  are  dead.     This  is  a  final  re-affirmation 
of  what  Jesus  has  been  saying  in  all  this  won- 
derful conversation,  or  series   of  discourses. 
But,  according  to  the  best  critics,  the  words 
translated  your  {viiCiv)  and  manna  (t6  iniwa.) 
do  not  belong  to  the  original  text,  which  reads : 
Not  as  the  Fathers  ate  and  died.    This  briefer 
form  is  no  less  pertinent  and  forcible,  as  a 
summary,  than  the  fuller  statement  of  the  re- 
ceived text.     From  the  last  clause,  we  learn 
that  the  multitude  from  the  other  side  of  the 
lake  found  Jesus  in  a  synagogue  of  Caperna- 
um, and  that  he  said  these  things  while  teach- 
ing in  that  place.     Some  have  supposed  that, 
not  only  the  site  of  Capernaum,  at  Tell  Huin, 
but  even  the  synagogue  where  Jesus  taught, 
have  been  discovered.     But  the  evidence  for 
neither  of  these  identifications  is  entirely  sat- 
isfi\ctory. 

Had  the  language  of  Christ  at  this  time  any 
reference  to  the  Holy  Supper  which  he  insti- 
tuted later?  There  is  no  evidence  that  it  had, 
no  hint  that  he  expected  to  embody  this  teach- 
ing in  a  sacred  rite,  no  expression  at  all  sug- 
gestive of  the  idea  that  the  eating  and  drink- 
ing here  pronounced  indispensable  to  salva- 
tion were  to  be  performed  sacramentally. 
Everything  shows  that  his  language  was  sim- 
ply figurative,  requiring  an  acceptance  of  him- 
self, or  his  flesh  and  blood,  in  order  to  eternal 
life,  but  saying  nothing  of  an  ordinance  by 
which  this  appropriation  was  to  be  accom- 
plished,  or,    rather,    represented.      Yet    the 


Christian  truths  taught  by  this  discourse,  and 
by  the  Holy  Supper,  are  essentially  the  same. 
In  neither  case,  does  Jesus  say  anything  of 
an  appropriation  of  his  glorified  body.  That 
will  not  consist  of  flesh  and  blood.  In  both 
instances,  he  refers  to  his  natural  humanity 
subjected  to  natural  death. 

60.  Many   therefore   of  his    disciples, 
when    they   (omit  had)  heard  this,   said. 
The  word  disciples  is  here  applied,  not  to 
"the    twelve"    (ve.-.67),   but    to    persons    less 
closely  connected  with  Jesus,  though  believ- 
ing him  to  be  the   Messiah.     Such   persons 
must  have  been  quite  numerous  at  this  time 
in    Capernaum,    and    many   of    them   were, 
doubtless,  in  the  synagogue.     This  is  a  hard 
saying;    who    can    hear    it?     This   word 
hard,  or  rough  (<r<cAr;pds),  is  here  used  in   an 
ethical  sense,  to  denote  the  disagreeable  im- 
pression which  the  last  part  of  Christ's  dis- 
course had  made  on  the  minds  of  these  dis- 
ciples.    "Who  can  listen  to  it?"      In  other 
words:    "This  doctrine  is  so  ofl^ensive  that  no 
one  can  be  expected  to  hearken  to  it  or  re- 
ceive it."     But  in  what  did  the  offensiveness 
of  Christ's  words  consist?     Not  in  this,  that 
it  was  supposed  to  require  a  literal  eating  of 
his  flesh  and  drinking  of  his  blood  in  order  to 
eternal   life  (an   eating  and   drinking  some- 
times called   Capernaitic,  because  these  dis- 
ciples were  of  Capernaum  and  were  thought 
to  have  understood  Christ's  language  to  be 
literal),  for  there  is  no  good  reason  to  charge 
them   with    so    gross  a  misconception ;    but 
rather  in  this,  that  it  presupposed  the  death 
of  Christ,  and  represented  the  Messiah  as  the 
Lamb  of  God.     This  was  utterly  distasteful 
to    the    disciples,   as  well    as    to    the    Jew.s. 
(Comp.  Matt.  16:  21,  sq. ;  John  12.:  34;  1  Cor. 
1:  23;  Gal.  5;  11).     We  need  not  go  beyond 
this  for  thei  cause  of  their  dissatisfaction  with 
the  saying  of  Jesus. 

61.    When    Jesus    knew    in    himself— 
i.  e.,  without  hearing  the  words  which  these 


164 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VI. 


62  «  What  and  if  ye  shall,  see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  [  62  you  to  stumble?  IVhat  then  if  ye  should  behold  the 
up  where  he  was  before  ?  63  Son  of  mau  ascending  where  he  was  before  ?    It  is 

63  '  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth  ;  the  flesh  profit-  the  spirit  that  quickeneth  ;  the  flesh  protiteth  noth- 
eth  nothing:  the  words  that  1  speak  unto  you, /Asy  are  ing:  the  words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  you  are 
gpirit,  and  they  are  life.  i 

a  Mark  16:  19;  ch.  3:  13;  Acts  1:9;  Eph.  4:  &....b  2  Cor.  3  :  6. 


offended  disciples  were  speaking  with  bated 
breath,  and  without  being  informed  by  any 
one  of  their  dissatisfaction.  The  words  indi- 
cate perfect,  independent,  superhuman  Icnowl- 
edge.  That  his  disciples  murmured  (or, 
were  inurmnring)  at  it  (or,  this),  he  said 
UHto  them:  Doth  this  oflTend  you? — i.  e., 
"  Is  this  a  rock  of  offence  over  which  you  are 
beginning  to  stumble  and  fall?  Do  my 
words  disappoint  your  hopes  and  shake  your 
contideuce  in  me?  " 

63.  What  and  if,  etc.  This  may  be  trans- 
lated :  If  then  ye  should  behold  the  Son  of 
man  ascending  up  where  he  was  before?  The 
thought  is  not  fully  expressed,  and  therefore 
many  prefix  the  word  what.  "What  then 
if  ye  should  behold"  this? — i.  e.,  What 
would  be  the  effect  on  your  minds,  if  you 
should  see  this,  and  not  merely  be  told  of  it? 
The  event  named  was  one  which  would  dis- 
appoint all  their  expectations  in  regard  to  the 
Ciirist  and  his  reign.  For  they  were  longing 
and  praying  for  a  Messianic  kingdom  on 
the  earth,  with  Jerusalem  for  its  capital,  and 
the  children  of  Israel  for  its  princes  and 
priests.  Should  Jesus  return  to  heaven,  he 
could  not  be  the  king  and  conqueror  whom 
they  looked  ft)r  as  the  Messiah. 

63.  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth  (or, 
maketh  alive) ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing. 
What  is  meant  by  the  Spirit?  Certainly 
not  the  human  spirit  of  Jesus;  for  in  no  other 
passage  is  such  virtue  ascribed  to  his  human 
spirit;  and  had  this  been  meant  he  would 
doubtless  have  said,  "My  spirit."  But  the 
expression  may  refer  to  spirit  in  distinction 
from  flesh ;  that  is,  it  may  denote  the  spirit  in 
a  generic  sense,  wherever  it  may  exist,  in 
connnection  with  flesh.  It  is  that  which 
makes  alive,  and  not  the  flesh — the  implica- 
tion being  that  this  grand  truth  is  applicable 
to  Christ  as  the  source  of  eternal  life.  Yet  it 
is,  perhaps,  more  probable  that  Jesus  means 
the  Holy  Spirit,  which  had  been.given  him 
without  measure  (3:34).  For  it  is  this  Spirit 
who  is  the  author  of  the  new  and  eternal  life 
in     man     (3:6;  Rom.  8:2;  2Cor.  s:  6).       Strangely 


enough,  Alford  seems  to  suppose  that  the  word 
flesh  cannot  here  refer  to  the  flesh  of  Christ, 
on  account  of  ver.  51.  But  he  maintains  in 
his  note  on  that  verse,  the  view,  that  "in  his 
resurrection  form  only  can  his  flesh  be  eaten, 
and  be  living  food  for  the  living  man,"  that 
"his  flesh  is  the  glorified  substance  of  his 
resurrection  body,  now  at  the  right  hand  of 
God" — a  view  quite  foreign  to  the  obvious 
meaning  of  the  Saviour's  words.  The  words 
that  I  speak  (or,  have  spoken)  unto  you, 
they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life.  Jesus 
here  affirms  that  his  language  has  been  figura- 
tive, since  his  flesh  and  his  blood — the  words 
which  serve  as  a  stumbling  block  to  his  dis- 
ciples— mean  spirit  and  mean  life.  (Conip. 
Matt.  26:  26,  27;  Mark  14:  22,  24;  1  Cor.  11: 
24,  25).  To  receive  his  Spirit,  and  thus  to 
receive  spiritual  life,  is  to  eat  his  flesh  and 
drink  his  blood.  For  that  Spirit  is  given  in 
consequence  of  the  Saviour's  death,  and  any 
one  who  is  regenerated  by  the  Spirit  accepts 
the  death  of  Christ  as  the  foundation  and 
reason  for  all  the  grace  that  has  been  im- 
parted to  him.  He  believes  in  Christ  through 
the  life-giving  action  of  the  Spirit  in  his  soul ; 
and  he  continues  a  believer  because  the  Sjtirit 
abides  in  him.  Says  Prof.  Stuart  ("Bib.  Sac." 
I.  p.  113):  "When  the  Son  of  man  has  as- 
cended up  to  heaven,  where  he  was  before  his 
incarnation,  and  his  bodily  presence  is  wholly 
withdrawn  from  you,  then  it  will  be  very 
plain,  that  my  words  are  not  to  have  a  literal 
sense  given  to  them.  .  .  .  When  I  speak  of 
eating  tny  flesh  and  drinking  my  blood,  I 
mean  that  a  spiritual  communion  with  me, 
and  a  spiritual  and  life-giving  participation 
of  the  graces  which  I  bestow,  are  absolutely 
necessary  to  future  and  eternal  happiness." 

Many  interpreters  look  upon  Jesus  as 
declaring  by  this  clause  that  his  words  are  to 
be  taken  in  a  spiritual  sense.  But  it  is  doubt- 
ful whether  the  noun  spirit  is  ever  used  by 
the  sacred  writers  in  that  way:  and,  if  it  is, 
how  (!an  the  words  and  are  life,  be  made  to 
agree  with  this  view?  For  to  sav  that  his 
words  must  be  understood  in  a  living  sense,  is 


Cu.  VI.] 


JOHN. 


1G5 


64  But  "there  are  some  of  you  tliat  believe  not.  P'or 
*Jesus  knew  from  the  begiiminj^  who  they  were  that 
believed  not,  ami  who  should  betray  him. 

65  And  he  said,  Therefore  '^^aid"I  unto  you,  that  no 
man  can  come  uuto  me,  except  it  were  giveu  unto  him 
of  my  Father. 

6G  "^From  that  lime  luany  of  his  disciples  went  back, 
and  walked  no  more  with  him. 

67  Then  said  Jesus  unto  the  twelve.  Will  ye  also  go 
awa,y  ? 


64  spirit,  and  are  life.  But  there  are  some  of  you  that 
believe  not.  For  .Tesus  knew  from  the  beginning 
who  they   were  that  believed   not,  and  who  it  w;is 

65  that  should  betray  him.  And  he  said.  For  this  cause 
have  I  said  unto  you,  that  no  man  can  come  unto 
me,  except  it  be  given  unto  him  of  the  Father. 

6r,      Upon  this  many  of  his  discijiles  went  back,  and 
67  walked  no  more  with  him.     Jesus  said  therefore 


a  ver.  36 6  ch.  2:  24,  25;  13:  11 c  ver.  44,  45 d  ver.  60. 


scarcely  intellrgible.  Others  look  upon  Christ 
as  affirming  "the  power  of  his  words  to  pro- 
duce life  andspirit  in  man" — (Hengstenberg), 
or,  "to  lead  man  into  another  world  and 
nature,  to  give  him  another  heart  and  mind  " 
— (Luther),  or,  "to  bear  and  reveal  the  Di- 
vine Spirit  which  is  in  him  and  the  Messianic 
life  which  is  originated  by  him" — (Meyer). 
But  this  view  appears  to  lose  sight  of  the  pre- 
ceding discourse,  and  especially  of  the  first 
part  of  this  verse.  Have  spoken  is  required 
by  the  early  copies,  instead  of  speak  in  the 
common  text. 

64.  But  there  are  some  of  you  that  be- 
lieve not.  By  this  remark  he  reminds  his 
now  wavering  and  dissatisfied  followers  that, 
not  his  teaching,  but  their  own  spirit,  is 
wrong.  With  all  their  profession  of  loyalty 
to  him  as  the  Messiah,  with  all  their  admira- 
tion of  his  character  and  wonder  at  his  mira- 
cles, thej'  were  destitute  of  true  faith  in  him ; 
were  strangers  to  the  self-forgetful  devotion 
and  deep  religious  life  which  alone  could  bind 
them  to  him  when  his  words  crossed  their 
hopes  of  a  temporal  kingdom.  For  Jesus 
kfiew  from  the  beginning  who  they  were 
that  believed  not,  and  who  should  betray 
him.  The  expression  from  the  beginning 
must  always  be  interpreted  in  harmony  with 
the  context,  and  generally  by  the  aid  of  that 
context.  Here  it  may  signify  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Lord's  ministry  (Meyer), 
or  from  the  time  when  these  professed  disci- 
ples began  to  follow  him  (De  Wette).  In 
either  case,  the  Evangelist  intends  to  ascribe 
to  him  divine  knowledge;  in  the  former  case, 
a  knowledge  which  foresaw  the  action  of  his 
transient  followers,  even  before  they  met  him, 
or  listened  to  his  teachings ;  ttnd,  in  the  latter, 
a  knowledge  which  foresaw  that  action  from 
the  hour  when  they  severally  met  him  first. 
We  regard  the  latter  view  as  preferable  to  the 
former. 

6ii.  Therefore  (or,  for   this  cause),  viz.  : 


because  he  knew  the  u,nbelief  of  many  whom 
he  was  now  specitilly  addressing.  They  were 
outwardly  his  disciples,  they  followed  him 
from  place  to  place,  and  professed  to  honor 
him  as  the  Messiah,  but  they  had  never  been 
drawn  to  him  by  the  Father.  Said  I  unto  you 
(see  ver.  37,  44),  that  no  man  can  come  unto 
me,  except  it  were  (or,  be)  given  unto  him 
of  my  Father.  These  disciples  had  attached 
themselves  to  Jesus  without  any  deep  sense  of 
spiritual  need.  The  grace  of  God  had  not 
prepared  their  hearts  to  receive  his  teaching. 
This  is  the  solemn  truth  which  Jesus  now 
presses  upon  their  attention.  And  there  are 
times  when  no  other  truth  is  so  pertinent  tis 
this.  There  are  men,  self-righteous  and  self- 
confident,  who  need  to  be  reminded  that  with- 
out the  grace  of  God  they  will  surely  perish. 

66.  From  that  time  (rather,  for  this  ren-. 
son)  many  of  his  disciples — so  called,  be-< 
cause  they  had  professed  to  be  such — went 
back,  and  walked  no  more  with  him, 
(Comp.  1  John  2 :  19).  They  had  attended  him 
from  time  to  time,  as  he  went  about  the  coun-^ 
try,  teaching  and  preaching  and  healing  the 
sick;  but  now  they  forsook  him,  and  went 
back  each  one  to  his  former  state  and  business. 
He  was  not  the  Messiah  of  their  expectations. 
As  the  light  became  clearer,  they  turned  from 
it,  because  they  loved  darkness  rather  than 
light. 

67.  Then  said  Jesus  (better:  Jesus  there- 
fore said)  unto  the  twelve.  Will  ye  also  go 
away?  By  the  form  of  his  question,  the  Sav- 
iour intimates  his  expectation  of  a  negative 
answer.  This  fact  cannot,  however,  be  repre- 
sented in  the  English,  though  it  is  fairly  sug- 
gested by  an  idiom  modeled  after  the  Greek, 
and  uttered  as  a  question,  viz. :  "  Ve  will  not 
go  away  "  ?  Observe  that  the  pronoun  ye  is 
emphatic,  in  contrast  with  the  disciples  who 
had  just  forsaken  him.  Ob-erve,  also,  that 
the  Evangelist  speaks  of  the  twelve  for  the 
first  time  in  this  phice,  as  if  they  were  a  well- 


1G6 


JOHN. 


[Cii.  VI. 


68  Then  Simon  Peter  answere(i  him,  Lord,  to  whom 
ihall  we  go?  thou  hast  "  the  words  of  eternal  life. 

69  'And  we  believe  and  are  sure  that  thou  art  that 
Christ,  the  Sou  of  the  living  God. 

7U  Jesus  answered  them,  <^Have  not  I  chosen  you 
twelve,  ■*  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil  ? 

71  He  spake  of  Judas  Iscariot  the  son  of  Simon:  for 
he  it  was  that  should  betray  him,  being  one  of  th. 
twelve. 


68  unto  the  twelve.  Would  ye  also  go  away?  Simon 
Peter  answered  him.  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go? 

69  thou  ihast  the  words  of  eternal  life.  And  we  have 
believed  and  know  that  thou  an  the  Holy  One  of 

70  (iod.    Jesus  answered  them.  Did  not  I  choose  you 

71  the  twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil?  Now  he  spake 
of  Judas,  the  son  of  Simon  Iscariot,  for  he  it  was 
that  should  betray  him,  bt:Lny  one  of  the  twelve. 


o  Acts  5;  W....b  Matt.  16  :  16  ;  Mark  8  :  29;  Luke  9:  20;  ch.  1:40;  11  :  2T....C  Luke  0  :  i:!....dch.  13:27. 1  Or,  hast  wordi. 


known  company  of  disciples,  though  he  has 
nowhere  referred  to  their  being  culled.  Thus 
he  assumes  a  knowledge  of  many  things  on 
the  part  of  his  readers. 

68,  69.  Peter,  ever  proinpt  and  decided, 
answers  for  the  group  :  Lord,  to  whom  shall 
we  go  [aivay)?  Thou  hast  the  words  of 
eternal  life.  (There  is  no  article  before 
words  in  the  original  text).  And  we  be- 
lieve and  are  sure  that  thou  art  that 
Christ,  etc.  (Better:  And  we  have  believed 
and  know  that  thou  art  the  Holy  One  of  God). 
This  presents  an  exact  version  of  Peter's  lan- 
guage, according  to  the  earliest  copies  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  best  textual  critics.  The  re- 
ceived text  appears  to  have  been  conformed 
to  the  words  of  Peter  on  another  occasion. 
(Matt.  16:16).  Possibly  soinc  superstitious  tran- 
scriber shrank  from  representing  Peter  as 
bearing  testimony  to  Christ  in  the  very  words 
employed  by  demons.  (See  Mark  1:  24; 
Luke  4:  34).  The  respon.se  of  Peter  dis- 
tinctly assumes:  (1)  That  the  twelve  feel  their 
need  of  a  Saviour;  (2)  that  no  Saviour  but 
Christ  is  known  to  them ;  and  (3)  that  he  is 
an  adequate  Saviour,  both  because  his  words 
reveal  the  way  to  eternal  life,  and  because  he 
himself  is  the  Holy  One  of  God.  It  may 
be  well  to  observe  once  more  the  leading  part 
which  this  Evangelist  assigns  to  Peter,  agree- 
ing, in  this  respect,  with  the  earlier  Evangel- 
ists. 

70.  Very  grateful  to  the  heart  of  Jesus  at 
that  moment  must  have  been  the  answer  of 
Peter.  It  was  a  beam  of  sunlight  breaking 
through  the  cloud  of  unbelief,  which  seemed 
to  be  settling  down  on  the  minds  of  the  peo- 
ple. Doubtless,  it  was  welcomed  with  deep 
joy  Yet  not  without  pain.  For  in  that  fa- 
vored group  there  was  one  whose  soul  was  not 
represented  by  the  loj-al  response  of  Peter. 
And  as  the  e^^e  of  Christ  looked  into  that  soul, 
and  perceived  its  hidden  working,  his  lips  ut- 
tered the  startling  sentence:  Have  not  I 
chosen  you  twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a 


devil?  In  the  original,  particular  stress  falls 
on  the  pronoun  I,  of  the  first  clause,  and  on 
the  words  of  you,  in  the  second.  I,  and  no 
one  else,  selected  j-ou,  and  j'et  of  you,  who 
were  thus  selected,  one  is  a  devil.  Jesus  did 
not  point  out  the  fiend  at  this  time;  it  was 
enough  to  remind  them,  by  a  single  terrific 
word,  that  thej^  were  not,  all  of  them,  what 
they  professed  to  be.  Whether  Judas  had 
any  suspicion  that  he  was  intended  by  the 
Lord,  can  only  be  conjectured. 

According  to  ver.  64,  Jesus  must  have 
known,  when  he  selected  Judas  to  be  one  of 
the  twelve,  that  he  wtis  an  unbeliever;  that 
he  would  remain  so,  in  spite  of  the  best  influ- 
ences, and  that  he  would  at  last  di^liver  up  his 
Master  to  his  foes.  But  many  interpreters 
feel  constrained  to  reject  this  view,  as  incom- 
patible with  moral  perfection  in  Christ.  (Com- 
pare Ullmann's  classic  work  on  "  The  Sinless- 
ness  of  Jesus,"  p.  187  sq.,  and  Meyer's  1.  Re- 
mark on  this  verse).  Yet  it  is  not  easy  to  see 
how  the  Saviour's  treatment  of  Judas  was 
either  unjust  to  him  or  to  any  other  man.  If 
the  sight  of  perfect  goodness  onlj'  served  to 
harden  his  heart,  the  same  is  true  of  all  who 
reject  the  gospel.  How  could  it  be  wrong  for 
Jesus  to  make  use  of  the  voluntary  service  of 
a  traitor  in  a  sphere  of  action  which  gave 
the  traitor  every  opportunity  to  repent,  even 
though  Christ  foresaw  that  he  would  not  r.'- 
pent? 

71.  He  spake  of  Judas  Iscariot,  etc. — 
Better:  Noiv  {or,  bid)  he  sjwke  of  Jiidns,  the 
son  of  Simon  Iscnriot~for  he  it  was  that 
should  (or.  was  about  to)  betraj'  him,  be- 
ing one  of  the  twelve.  The  critical  editors 
connect  the  word  Iscariot  with  Simon,  and  not 
with  Judas.  It  is  probably  an  adjective,  like 
the  word  Nazarene,  formed  from  the  name  of 
the  place  to  which  Judas  and  his  fatherSimon 
belonged.  The  name  of  the  town  appears  to 
have  been  Kerioth.  It  was  )>ri>bably  situated 
in  Judea.  (Josii.  u:  25).  But  Westeott  remarks 
that  the  common  rendering  of  Josh.  15:  25  ap- 


Ch.  VII.] 


JOHN. 


167 


CHAPTEK  VII. 


AFTER  these  things  Jesus  walked  in  Galilee:  for  he 
would    not   walk    in  Jewi-y,  "  because   the  Jews 
sought  to  kill  him. 
2  'Now  the  Jews'  feast  of  tabernacles  was  at  hand. 


1  And  after  these  things  Jesus  walked  in  Galilee  :  for 
he  would  not  walk  in  J  udcea,  because  the  Jews  sought 

2  to  kill  him.    Now  the  feast  of  the  Jews,  the  feast  of 


a  eh.  5 :  16, 18 b  Ler.  23 :  34. 


pears  to  be  incorrect,  for  Kerioth  ought  to  be 
joined  with  Hezron  (Kerioth-Hezron) ;  and 
adds:  "May  not  the  town  be  identified  with 
the  Kerioth  of  Moab,  mentioned  in  Jer.  48: 
24?" 


Ch.  7  :  1-13.  Visit  to  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles,  Oct.  11-18.  a.  d.  29. 

The  Evangelist  now  refers  in  passing  (ver. 
1)  to  a  period  of  about  six  and  a  half  months, 
from  the  Passover  (6:4)  to  the  Feast  of  Tab- 
ernacles (7:2),  which  Jesus  spent  in  Northern 
Palestine,  but  without  relating  any  of  the 
events  belonging  to  that  period,  perhaps 
because  they  had  been  described  in  the  earlier 
Gospels. 

1.  And  after  these  things — namely,  the 
things  recorded  in  chapter  sixth.  Jesus 
walked  in  Galilee.  The  word  which  is 
translated  walked,  means,  literally,  was 
walking  about,  and  may  have  been  chosen  in 
preference  to  any  other,  because  Jesus  spent 
much  of  his  time  in  itinerant  preaching.  In 
Galilee,  points  out  the  region  where  most  of 
his  time  was  passed ;  but  we  need  not  infer 
from  it  that  he  did  not  visit,  meanwhile,  the 
coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  the  region 
called  Decapolis. 

The  events  which  Robinson  assigns  to  this 
period  of  Christ's  ministry,  are  these:  Christ's 
replj'  to  the  criticisms  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  from  Jerusalem  on  his  disciples  for 
eating  with  unwashen  hands  (M.itt.  15 : 1-20;  Mark?: 
1-23) ;  his  healing  the  daughter  of  a  Syrophe- 
nician  woman  (iiati.  15:21-28;  Mark  7: 24-30);  his 
healing  a  deaf  and  dumb  man,  with  others, 

(Matt.  15:29-31;  Mark  7:  31-37);      his    feeding    the    four 

thousand  (Matt.  15:32-38;  Marks:  1.9);  his  answer  to 
the  Pharisees  who  required  a  sign  (M^at.  16: 1-4; 
Mark  8: 11, 12) ;  his  caution  to  his  disciples  to 
beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  etc. 
(Matt.  16 : 5-12 ;  Mark  8 :  u-21);  his  healing  a  blind  man 
(Mark  8: 22-26);  the  confcssiou  of  PetCT  and  the 
other  disciples,  that  he  was  the  Christ,  the 

Son     of    God    (Miitt.  16:  13-20;  Mark  8:  27-30;  Luke  9:  18-21) 

his  prediction  of  his  own  death  and  resurrec- 


tion, with  the  trials  of  his  disciples  (Matt.  i6: 21.28; 
Mark 8:. 31-38;  Luke 9: 22-27);  his  transfiguration  and 
subsequent  discourse  with  three  disciples  (Matt. 

17:  1-13;  Mark  9:  2-13;  Luk&9:  28-36)  ;  his  healing  of  a 
lunatic  boy  (Matt,  n  :  14.21 ;  Mark  9:  14-29;  Luke  9  :  37-43)  ; 

his  renewed  prediction'of  his  own  death  and 

resurrection  (Matt,  n  :  22-23  ;  Mark  9  :  30-32  ;  Luke  9  :  43-45)  ; 

his  provision  for  the  temple  tax  by  miracle 
(Matt.  17:24-27;  Mark  9;  33);  the  Contention  of  his 
disciples  as  to  who  should  be  greatest  (Matt,  is 

1-35  ;  Mark  9  :  3:i-50;  Luke  9:46-50);  the  SCVCntj'  in- 
structed and  sent  out  (Lute  lO:  i-ie).  But  An- 
drews, in  his  "Life  of  Our  Lord,"  assigns 
the  sending  out  of  the  seventy  to  a  later 
period  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  and  offers 
strong  reasons  for  this.  (See  "Life  of  Our 
Lord,"  p.  355  sq.).  For  he  would  not 
walk  in  Jewry:  literally,  he  did  not  wish 
(or,  will)  to  walk  in  Judea,  that  is,  to  do  the 
work  of  his  ministry'  there,  by  going  about 
from  place  to  place  and  preaching  the  gospel. 
Because  the  Jews  sought  (or,  toere  seek- 
ing) to  kill  him.  By  the  Jews  are  meant 
the  representative  men  of  the  nation,  espe- 
cially members  of  the  Sanhedrin.  Most  of 
them  lived  in  Judea,  and  of  these  a  consider- 
able part  dwelt  in  Jerusalem.  Their  attempt 
to  kill  Jesus  has  been  referred  to  in  5:  18.  It 
was  not  the  effect  of  sudden  and  passing 
hatred,  but  of  deep-seated  and  enduring  hos- 
tility, which  threatened  his  life,  should  he 
sojourn  for  any  length  of  time  in  Judea.  So 
he  wisely  remained  in  Galilee,  as  his  earthly 
ministry  was  not  yet  accomplished. 

2.  Now  the  Jews'  feast  of  tabernacles 
was  at  hand.  For  an  account  of  this  festi- 
val, see  Lev.  23:  34-36,  39-43;  and  Deut.  16: 
13-1-5.  It  was  one  of  the  three  great  festivals 
at  which  all  the  males  in  Israel  were  required 
to  appear  before  God  at  Jerusalem,  (oeut.  i6:  le). 
It  began  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  seventh 
month,  or  Tisri,  answering  to  our  October, 
and  was  celebrated  a  full  week.  It  was  fol- 
lowed, on  the  eighth  da^',  by  a  holj'  convoca- 
tion. "Ye  shall  dwell  in  booths  seven  daj's; 
all   that  are   Israelites   born   shall   dwell    in 


168 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VII. 


3  "His  brethren  therefore  said  unto  him,  Depart 
hence,  and  go  into  Judea,  that  thy  disciples  also  may 
see  the  works  that  thou  doest. 

4  For  there  is  no  man  that  doeth  any  thing  in  secret, 
and  he  himself  seelceth  to  be  known  openly.  If  thou 
do  these  things,  shew  thyselt  to  the  world. 

5  For  '  neither  did  his  brethren  believe  in  him. 


3  tabernacles,  was  at  hand.  His  brethren  therefore 
said  unto  him.  Depart  hence,  and  go  into  Jud8ea,that 
thy  disciples  also  may  behold  thy  works  which  thou 

4  doest.  }  or  no  man  doeth  anything  in  secret,  i  and 
himself  seeketh  to  be  known  openly.     If  thou  doest 

5  these  things,  manifest  thyself  to  the  world.      For 


a  Matt.  12  :  46 :  Mark  3 :  31 ;  Acts  1 :  11 h  Mark  3 :  21. 1  Some  ancient  autlioriiies  read,  and  eeeketh  it  to  6    known  openly. 


booths :  that  your  generations  may  know  that 
I  made  the  children  of  Israel  to  dwell  in 
booths,  when  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt."  (Lev. 23:42, 43j.  It  was  also- called 
"the  feast  of  ingathering"  (ex.23:16);  and  wtis 
a  season  of  joy,  commemorating  the  deliver- 
ance of  the  people  from  bondage  by  their 
journey  through  the  wilderness,  and  the 
bringing  in  of  the  fruits  of  the  field  at  the 
end  of  the  year.  Special  sacrifices  were  of- 
fered, and  parts  of  the  law  were  publicly  read. 

(Deul.  31:10sq. ;  Neh.  8:  18;   Joseph.  ■' Ant."  4,  8,  12).       JoSC- 

phus  calls  it  "a  holiest  and  greatest  feast." 

3.  His  brethren  {brothers)  therefore 
said  unto  him.  The  word  therefore  shows 
that  the  proximity  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
was  the  occasion  of  his  brothers'  words.  Ac- 
cording to  the  best  supported  text  of  Matt. 
13 :  55,  the  names  of  his  four'  brothers  were 
"James  and  Joseph  and  Simon  and  Judas." 
They  were  probably  either  sons  of  Joseph 
and  Mary,  and  so  younger  brothers  of  Jesus, 
or  sons  of  Joseph  b3'^  a  former  marriage.  But 
the  view  that  they  were  sons  of  Joseph  and 
Mary  seems  to  have  been  the  earliest  opinion, 
and  to  deserve  the  preference.  (See  Note  on 
2:  12).  Depart  heuce,  and  go  into  Ju- 
dea, that  thy  disciples  also  may  see  the 
works  that  thou  doest  (or,  may  behold  thy 
works  which  thou  doest. — Eev.  Ver.).  Nearly 
all  the  disciples  of  Jesus  might  be  expected  to 
visit  Jerusalem  at  this  feast.  Many  of  them 
resided  in  Judea,  and  even  those  of  Northern 
Palestine  would  be  likely  to  keep  the  ap- 
proaching festival  in  the  holy  city.  Hence, 
the  brothers,  who  were  doubtless  expecting 
that  the  Messiah  would  be  a  great  temporal 
prince,  seem  to  have  felt  that  it  was  high  time 
for  his  mighty  works  to  be  wrought  in  the 
presence  of  the  whole  body  of  his  adherents, 
and  for  his  Messiahship,  if  genuine,  to  be 
proclaimed  in  the  capital  of  the  nation.  Their 
language  has  sometimes  been  thought  to  be- 
token envy,  or  ambition — i.  e.,  a  wish  to  have 
him  fall  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies,  or  a 


desire  to  share  in  his  advancement ;  but  neither 
of  these  feelings  is  expressed,  or  necessarily 
implied.  They  evidently  desired  to  have  the 
question  as  to  what  he  was  fintilly  settled  ;  but 
their  words  do  not  reveal  the  particular  mo- 
tives which  led  them  to  speak  as  they  did. 
Yet  it  is  to  be  freely  admitted  that  they  had 
failed  to  appreciate  the  elevation  of  his  char- 
acter, and  to  yield  to  the  evidence  of  his  Mes- 
siahship. 

4.  For  no  man  doeth  (omit  there  is  and 
that)  any  thing  in  secret,  and  he  himself 
seeketh  to  be  known  openly.  Thus  the 
brothers  justify  their  counsel,  assuming  that 
Jesus  is  seeking  to  be  known  and  received  by 
the  wliole  people,  while  his  conduct  is  incon- 
sistent with  such  an  aim.  The  more  concealed 
one's  works,  the  less  known  will  he  be;  the 
more  public  his  works,  the  more  known  will 
he  himself  be.  They  now  proceed  to  apply 
this  principle  to  Jesus.  If  thou  do  (or,  do- 
est) these  things,  shew  (or,  manifest)  thy- 
self to  the  world.  By  the  former  clause, 
the  brothers  may  not  have  intended  to  express 
any  actual  doubt  in  respect  to  his  doing  the 
works  referred  to ;  they  may  have  used  the 
hypothetical  form  simply  as  a  premise  to  the 
inference  expressed  in  the  latter  clause.  Thus, 
"the  works  which  thou  art  doing  from  time 
to  time,  in  comparative  secrecj',  ought  to  be 
performed  in  the  most  public  manner  possible, 
or  before  the  world." 

5.  For  neither  did  his  brethren  believe 
in  him  (or,  more  exactly.  For  even  his  broth- 
ers were  not  believing  in  him).  Notice  (1)  that 
in  this  verse  the  Evangelist  represents  the 
brothers  as  being  in  a  state  of  unbelief.  He 
does  not  refer  to  a  momentary  act,  but  to  a 
continuous  state.  (2)  That  in  verse  3,  the 
brothers  speak  of  thy  disciples,  as  though 
they  did  not  regard  themselves  as  belonging 
to  that  class  of  the  people.  (3)  That  Jesus 
plainly  separates  them  from  himself  in  verse 
6.  Bearing  in  mind  these  facts,  we  cannot 
suppose  that  three  out  of  the  four  wore  of  the 
twelve.  (See  6  :  68  sq. ).     The  meaning  is,  that 


Ch.  VIL] 


JOHN. 


169 


6  Then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  « My  time  is  not  yet 
come:  l)ut  your  time  is  always  ready. 

7  'Tlie  world  cauuot  liiitt;  you;   but  me   it  hatetli, 
'  because  I  testify  of  it,  that  tlie  works  thereof  are  evil. 

8  Go  ye  up  unto  this  feast:  I  go  not  up  yet  uuto  this 
feast;  ''for  my  time  is  not  yet  full  come. 


6  even  his  brethren  did  not  believe  on  him.     Jesus 
therefore  sailh  unto  them,  My  tiuie  is  not  yet  come; 

7  but  your  time  is  alway  ready.     The  world  cannot 
liate  you;  but  me  it  hatetli,  because  1  testify  ol  it, 

8  that  its  works  are  evil,    (jo  ye  up  uuto  the  feast :  1 
go  not  upi  unto  this  feast;  because  my  time  is  not 


..&ch.  15: 19....ech.  3:  19....(i  ch.  8:  20;  ver.  6. 1  Hauy  ancient  aiiihorities  ndd,  yet. 


at  this  time  the  brothers  of  Jesus  were  with- 
out faith  in  him  as  the  Messiah.  They  had 
not,  perhaps,  definitely  rejected  his  chiims; 
they  were  wnbelievers,  rather  than  c?tsbeliev- 
ers.  And  the  Scriptures  afturd  no  evidence 
of  a  thorough  change  in  tiieir  conviction  until 
after  his  resurrection.  To  one  of  them,  he 
appeared  in  his  raised  body  (icor.  i5:7),  and  it 
is  possible  that  then,  for  the  first  time,  he  fully 
believed  in  Jesus. 

6.  Then  Jesus  said  unto  them.  (More 
exactly,  Jesus  therefore  saith  to  them).  The 
word  therefore  makes  the  following  words  a 
response  to  what  the  brothers  had  said.  My 
time  is  not  yet  come.  That  is,  "the  oppor- 
tune and  appointed  moment  for  me  to  go  up  to 
Jerusalem,  for  the  purpose  which  you  have  in 
mind,  has  not  yet  arrived."  For  Jesus  knew 
that  there  was  more  for  him  to  do,  especially 
in  teaching  and  training  his  twelve  disciples, 
before  he  should  bring  on  the  crisis  of  his  final 
rejection.  But  your  time  is  always  ready. 
The  time  of  their  going  up  to  the  feast  was  a 
matter  of  indifference.  There  was  no  special 
reason  why  thej'  should  not  freely  choose  the 
day  and  hour  for  their  journey.  Ordinary 
considerations  were  enough  to  direct  them  in 
ordinary  circumstances.  As  Jews,  and  noth- 
ing more,  they  could  appear  in  Jerusalem 
whenever  they  pleased.  It  may,  perhaps,  be 
inferred  from  this  saj'ing  of  Christ,  that,  in 
the  common  work  of  life,  God  does  not  reveal 
to  us  a  definite  time  for  each  particular  act; 
that  the  hour  of  doing  inany  things  is  left  to 
the  judgment  or  preference  of  man;  and 
hence,  that  we  are  scarcely  to  expect,  even  in 
answer  to  prayer,  any  special  intimation  of 
God's  will  as  to  our  duties,  moment  by  mo- 
ment— any  divine  impression  that  may  super- 
sede the  use  of  reason.  Inspired  illumination 
is  unnecessary  to  a  right  performance  of  or- 
dinary Christian  work. 

7.  The  world  cannot  hate  yon.  By 
the  world  is  here  meant  the  people  in  gen- 
eral, who  were  still  strangers  to  the  new 
"kingdom  of  God"  that  Christ  was  establish- 


ing. It  was  morally  impossible  for  this  world 
to  hate  the  brothers  of  Jesus,  because,  as  the 
rest  of  the  verse  shows,  they  had  taken  no 
stand  against  the  religious  belief  or  conduct 
of  the  world.  There  was  no  radical  o]»posi- 
tion  between  them  and  the  people.  Hence 
this  expression  proves  that  none  of  these 
brothers  belonged  to  the  circle  of  the  twelve 
whom  Christ  had  selected  to  be  his  intimate 
friends.  But  me  it  hateth — already  and 
bitterly — because  I  testify  of  it — habitually, 
by  word  and  deed — that  the  works  thereof 
are  evil ;  that  is,  sinful.  Though  this  lan- 
guage expresses  distinctly  the  estimate  which 
Jesus  put  on  his  every  day  work  as  a  teacher, 
he  may  have  recalled  at  this  time  his  words 
to  the  Pharisees  in  Jerusalem  (see  5 :  42,  44, 
47);  for  he  had  declared  with  great  plainness 
of  speech  their  profound  sinfulness. 

8.  Go  ye  up  unto  this  feast :  I  go  not 
up  yet  unto  this  feast;  for  my  time  is 
not  yet  full  come.  The  word  yet,  in  the 
second  clause  of  the  Common  Version,  should 
probably  be  omitted.  Westcott  and  Hort, 
however,  retain  it,  with  some  of  the  best  MSS. 
The  words,  I  go  not  (or,  am  not  going)  up 
unto  this  feast,  are  a  pregnsuu  expres- 
sion, to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the 
demand  which  had  been  made.  That  demand 
did  not  have  in  view  a  going  up  to  Jerusalem 
merely  to  observe  the  festival,  but  a  going  up 
to  the  feast  for  the  purpose  of  manifesting 
himself  to  the  whole  body  of  his  disciples  by 
such  mighty  works  as  would  settle  the  ques- 
tion of  his  Messiahship.  Jesus  knew  that 
such  a  course  would  naturally  lead  to  his 
death — an  event  which  belonged  to  a  future 
time  and  another  feast.  The  interpretation 
which  we  have  given  accords  with  the  style 
of  this  Gospel,  in  which  there  is  a  deep,  un- 
derlying continuilj'  of  thought,  so  that  very 
often  single  clauses  can  only  bo  understood 
by  means  of  the  context;  and,  if  it  is  correct, 
all  appearance  of  contradiction  between  this 
verse  and  the  tenth  disappe;irs.  Jesus  did  not 
mislead   his  brothers,  or  change  his  purpose; 


170 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VIL 


9  When  he  had  said  these  words  unto  them,  he  abode 
still  in  Galilee. 

10  But  when  his  brethren  were  gone  up,  then  went 
he  also  up  unto  the  feast,  not  openly,  but  as  it  were  in 
secret. 

11  Then  "the  Jews  sought  him  at  the  feast,  and  said, 
Where  is  he? 


9  yet  fulfilled.   And  liavingsaid  these  thing  unto  them, 
he  abode  slill  in  Galilee. 

10  But  when   his   brethren  were  gone  up  unto  the 
feast,  then  went  he  also  up,  not  publicly,  but  as  it 

11  were  iu  secret.    The  Jews  therefore  sought  him  at 


for  he  did  not  go  up  to  this  feast  in  the  way, 
or  for  the  purpose,  contemplated  by  them. 
"His  first  public  entrance  into  Jerusalem  was 
the  entrance  in  the  procession  with  palms; 
by  that  he  showed  himself  publicly  to  the 
world,  and  by  that,  also,  he  brought  on  his 
own  death" — (Lange).  Godet  insi.sts  that  the 
Greek  for  "my  time  is  not  yet  full  come,"  is 
"too  solemn  an  expression  (jrcTrA^puTai)  to  bo 
applied  to  the  interval  of  a  few  days  which 
separated  this  response  from  the  sudden  ap- 
pearance of  Christ  in  Jerusalem,"  and  inter- 
prets the  language  of  Jesus  as  we  have  done 
above.  Westcott  remarks:  "The  Feast  of 
Tabernacles  was  a  festival  of  peculiar  joj'  for 
work  accomplished.  At  such  a  feast  Christ 
had  now  no  place."  This  able  scholar  accepts 
the  reading  not  yet  (outtu),  as  genuine.  The 
same  is  true  likewise  of  Dr.  Hort.  But  "Weiss 
strenuously  opposes  this  reading,  interpreting 
Christ's  language  as  "a  categorical  refusal, 
equivalent  to  the  words,  "I,  for  my  part,  go 
not  up  to  tins  feast,  because,  not  until  a  later 
day  will  the  right  point  of  time  come,  when, 
with  my  full  self-revelation,  the  unavoidable 
decision  will  take  place.'"  He  also  thinks 
that  Jesus  was  waiting  for  a  divine  intimation 
when  to  go  up,  and  that  this  intimation,  when 
it  came,  "did  not  direct  him  to  go  up  to  Jeru- 
salem, in  order  to  bring  on  the  final  decision, 
but  for  the  purpose  of  taking  up,  under  the 
divine  protection,  once  more,  and  for  a  con- 
siderable time,  his  work  of  refutation  and  in- 
struction in  the  principal  seat  of  the  theoc- 
racy." We  prefer  to  say  that  the  di'vine  will 
was  constantly  known  to  Jesus,  and  that  his 
not  going  up  with  his  brothers  publicly  at  this 
time,  together  with  his  open  refusal  to  do  this, 
was  in  as  perfect  accord  with  the  divine  will 
as  his  going  up  at  a  later  day,  and  in  a  private 
manner.  He  did  not  wait  in  darkness  for  a 
"  wink"  that  he  should  go,  but  he  waited  in 
light  until  the  fitting  moment  came,  knowing 
when  to  remain  where  he  was,  and  when  to 
visit  again  the  holy  city.     Every  hour  had  its 


appropriate  work,  and  that  work  he  recog- 
nized and  performed. ^ 

9.  When  he  had  said  (literally,  saying) 
these  words  unto  them,  he  abode  still  in 
Galilee.  Or,  according  to  another  reading 
of  nearly  equal  authority:  "Saying  these 
things,  he  himself  remained  in  Galilee"  ;  the 
implication  being,  that  his  brothers  went  up 
with  the  rest  of  the  people  to  the  feast. 

10.  But  when  his  brethren — (brothers) 
Avere  gone  up,  then  Avent  he  also  up  unto 
the  feast.  According  to  the  best  editors  of 
the  Greek  text,  the  words  unto  the  feast, 
are  a  part  of  the  first  clause,  not  of  the 
second.  Hence  it  is  possible  that  the  Evan- 
gelist did  not  intend  to  say  that  Jesus  went 
up  to  observe  the  feast,  but  only  that  he  went 
up,  though  for  some  other  purpose.  As  he 
appeared  in  the  temple  about  the  middle  of  the 
feast  (ver.  14),  he  probably  remained  in  Gali- 
lee three  or  four  daj's  after  the  departure  of 
his  brothers.  Not  openly,  but  as  it  Avere 
in  secret.  Thus  in  a  very  different  way 
from  that  which  his  brothers  had  proposed. 
Yet  the  harmonists  suppose  that  he  went  up 
with  his  disciples,  that  on  his  way  a  certain 
village  of  Samaria  declined  to  receive  hitn 
(Luke 9. 51-56),  and  that  he  also  cleansed  ten 
lepers  as  he  was  about  to  enter  another  village 
(Luke  17: 11-19).  Other  events,  as  the  sending  out 
of  the  seventy  (Luke  10: 1-16),  are  connected  by 
some  with  this  journey.  But  he  did  not  go 
up  with  the  multitude. 

11.  Then  the  Jcavs,  etc.   (Better,  the  Jews 

1  [Instead  of  I  go  not  nj>  .yetc  it  seems  necessary 
to  read  /  go  not  vp,  as  the  American  Com.  propose  in 
Appendix.  The  authority  for  not  (ovk)  is  XD  K  M  IT. 
(A  is  defective  here),  three  cursives,  several  copies  of 
the  Old  Latin,  the  Latin  A'ulgate  (except  some  codices,) 
Memphitic,  Old  Syriac  (Curetonian),  Armenian,  -Elhi- 
opic;  .Terome  mentions  that  Porphyry  accused  Jestis 
of  fickleness,  in  saying  he  would  not  go,  and  then 
going;  Cyril,  of  Alexandria,  Chrysostoni,  and  Kpipha- 
nius  speak  of  the  difficulty,  and  try  to  explain  it.  The 
authority  for  not  yet  (ovitu>)  is   B  L  T  and  eleven 


Ch.  VII.] 


JOHN. 


171 


12  And  "there  was  much  imirnuiriiig  ainon^  the  peo- 
ple coacerning  hiiu  :  for  '  some  said,  He  is  a  ^ood  man  : 
others  said,  Nay  ;  but  he  deceiveth  the  people. 

13  Howbeit  no  man  spake  openly  of  him  "lor  fear  of 
the  Jews. 

14  Now  about  the  midst  of  the  feast  Jesus  went  up 
into  the  temple,  and  taught. 


12  the  feast,  and  said,  Where  is  he?  And  there  was 
much  murmuring  among  the  multitudes  concerning 
him:  some  said,  He  is  a  good  man;  others  said.  Not 

13  so,  but  he  leadetli  the  multitude  astray.  Howbeit 
no  man  spake  openly  of  him  for  fear  of  the  Jews. 

14  But  when  it  was  now  the  midst  of  the  feast  Jesus 


dch.  9:  16;  10:  19 &  Matt.  21:46;  Luke  7:  16;  cb.  6:  U;  ver.  40....C  ch.  9:  22;  12:42;  19:38. 


therefore)  sought  him  at  the  feast,  and 
said,  Where  is  he?  or,  Where  is  that  one? 
They  sought,  (or,  v^eve  seeking — Ai>w  note  the 
imperfect  tense).  Of  course,  with  hostile  in- 
tent. Their  desire  to  take  his  life  had  not 
become  any  weaker.  The  period,  whether  of 
seven  months  or  of  eighteen,  whether  from 
the  Feast  of  Purim  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
in  the  same  year,  or  from  the  festival  of  the 
Passover,  or  of  Pentecost,  in  one  year  to  that 
of  Tabernacles  in  the  next  year,  had  not 
changed  their  temper  or  purpose.  Probably 
they  had  kept  themselves  informed  of  the 
movements  of  Jesus  during  his  absence  from 
Jerusalem,  and  had  nursed  their  enmity  by 
thoughts  of  their  waning  influence.  For  if 
he  should  be  received  as  the  Messiah,  their 
power  would  be  broken. 

12.  And  there  was  much  murmuring 
(or,  muttering)  among  the  people  (lit.,  mul- 
titudes) concerning  him.  For  tlie  sense  of 
the  word  murmuring,  see  Notes  on  6 :  41  and 
61.  Plainly,  there  was  no  lack  of  interest  in 
respect  to  Jesus ;  but  the  people  spoke  to  one 
another  in  low  tones  of  voice,  as  if  a  crisis 
were  at  hand.  Some  said  (or,  were  saying), 
He  is  a  good  man :  others  said  (or,  were 
saying).  Nay;  but  he  deceiveth  the  people 
(lit.,  tnultitude).  Thus  they  were  looking  at 
his  character  ;  and  this  is  always  a  matter  of 

other  uncials,  most  cursives  (many  have  not  been  ex- 
amined on  this  passage),  three  copies  of  the  Old  Latin 
and  some  of  the  Vulgate,  Thebaic,  the  Peshito,  Hark- 
lean  and  Jerusalem  Syriac,  the  Gothic,  and  a  quotation 
in  Basil.  Transcriptional  probabilty  is  overwhelmingly 
in  favor  of  not,  as  a  very  difficult  reading,  readily 
changed  into  not  yet,  which  at  once  removes  the 
difficulty;  while  we  cannot  Imagine  any  reason  for 
changing  the  not  yet  into  not.  And  intrinsic 
probability  cannot  be  arrayed  on  the  other  side,  except 
by  claiming  that  the  reading  not  is  practically  impos- 
sible, wholly  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  our 
Lord.  But  it  may  be  variously  explained.  (1)  As  sug- 
gested by  Chrysostom  and  Cyril,  it  may  mean  that  he 
was  not  going  with  the  Jews— to  share  their  festivities 
— or,  (Plumpti'e)  in  the  regular  caravan,  as  a  pilgrim 
(.5 :  1).  (2)  They  urged  him  to  go  as  Messiah ;  but 
when  he  did  that,  it  would  be  the  signal  for  his  death  : 


the  highest  moment.  It  was  not  now  the 
miracles  or  the  teaching  of  .Jesus  which  formed 
the  subject  of  debate,  but  himself;  whether 
he  was  good  or  bad,  truthful  or  deceptive. 
And  that  is,  in  some  sense,  the  question  still. 
We  must  now  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Mes- 
siah, the  Son  of  the  Holy,  or  that  he  was  an 
impostor,  deceiving  the  people.  Strange  that 
there  should  still  be  doubt  in  any  mind  ! 

13.  Howbeit  (or,  yet)  no  man  spake 
openly  of  him,  for  fear  of  the  Jews.  13y 
the  JeAVs,  must  be  meant,  in  this  place,  as  so 
often  in  this  Gospel,  tiie  chief  men  of  the  na- 
tion, and  especially  those  belonging  to  the 
Sanhedrin.  Their  judgment  had  not  yet  been 
announced,  and  therefore  the  people  were 
afraid  to  speak  out  boldly  for  or  against  him. 
It  was  tlieir  judgment  which,  in  all  proba- 
bility, his  brothers  wislied  to  secure,  by  ad- 
vising him  to  show  himself  openly  to  the 
world,  (ver.  3, 4).  But  many  of  the  people 
must  have  known  something  of  their  enmity 
to  Jesus,  and  therefore  those  who  believed 
him  to  be  good  had  special  reason  to  fear  the 
Jews.  This  was  the  state  of  atfairs  during  the 
first  part  of  the  festival. 

14-36.  Discussions  at  the  Feast. 

14.  Now  about  the  midst  of  the  feast 
Jesus  went  up  into  the  temple,  and 
taught.     Whether  Jesus  repaired  to  the  tem- 


so  he  is  not  going  up  (in  that  capacity)  to  this  feast. 
(Comp.  Godet).  The  answer  was  enigmatical,  because 
he  could  not  explain  himself  to  them.  (3)  It  is  even 
possible  to  say  (with  Meyer),  that  Jesus  changed  his 
mind  (ver.  10),  as  he  did  with  the  Syrophenician 
mother.  Since  the  difficult  reading  is  intrinsically 
not  at  all  impossible,  the  transcriptional  probability 
must  carry  the  day,  and  the  reading  not  must  be  ac- 
cepted. Westcott  and  Hort  would,  no  doubt,  say  that 
it  is  a  "  Western  "  reading,  being  given  by  N  D,  Old 
Latin,  and  Old  Syriac.  But  apaitTrom  the  evidence  of 
the  Memphitic,  and  .ffithiopic  Versions  and  Greek 
Fathers,  it  may  be  remembered  that  Westcott  and  Hort 
incline  strongly  to  accept  various  exclusively  "AVest- 
ern"  readings  in  the  latter  part  of  Luke  and  Matthew, 
on  internal  grounds;  and  internal  evidence  is  ex- 
tremely clear  and  strong  in  this  case ;  indeed,  is  orer- 
whelming. — B.] 


172 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VII. 


15  "And  the  Jews  marvelled,  saying,  How  knoweth 
this  man  letters,  having  never  learned? 

IG  Jesus  answered  them,  and  said,  >>  My  doctrine  is 
not  mine,  but  his  that  sent  me. 

17  «If  any  man  will  do  is  will,  he  shall  know  of  the 
doctrine,  whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  of 
myself. 

18  <<He  that  speaketh  of  himself  seeketh  his  own 


15  went  up  into  the  temple,  and  taught.     The  Jews 
therefore  marvelled,  saying.  How  knoweth  this  iiiau 

16  letters,  having  never  learned?    Jesus  therefore  an- 
swered them,  and  said,  My  teaching  is  not  mine, 

17  but  his  that  sent  me.    If  any  man  willeth  to  do  his 
will,  he  shall  know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it  is  of 

18  God,  or    whether  I   speak    from    myself.      He  that 
speaketh  from  himself  seeketh  his  own  glory,  but 


o  Matt.  13:54;  Murk  6:  2;  Luke  4:  22;  Acls  2  :  7....6  ch.  3:  11 ;  8:  28  ;  12:  49;  U:  10,  24....C  ch.  8:  43....d  ch.  5  :  41 ;  8:50. 


pie  as  soon  as  he  reached  the  city,  is  not  stated ; 
but  it  may  be  presumed  that  the  two  events 
were  not  far  apart.     Plainly,  however,  he  did 
not  repair  to  the  holy  city,  or  to  the  temple, 
at  this  time,  in  order  to  observe  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the 
Mosaic  law  (see  on  ver.  2),  but  in  order  to  in- 
struct the  people  in  respect  to  the  things  of 
his  kingdom.     And,  apart  from  supernatural 
protection,  he  could  do  this  most  safely  when 
surrounded  by  multitudes  of  the  common  peo- 
ple; for  many  of  these  heard  him  gladly.    By 
using  the  imperfect  tense  of  the  verb,  to  teach, 
the  Evangelist  represents  the  teaching  of  Je- 
sus as  in  progress,  or  continuous ;  and,  <m  this 
account,    the    translation,     "was    teaching," 
would,  perhaps,  be  more  exact  than  the  trans- 
lation, taught. 
15-24.  With  "the  Jews." 
15.  And  the  Jews   marvelled.     By  the 
tense  of  the  verb,  we  learn  that  their  aston- 
ishment, as  well  as  his  teaching,  was  continu- 
ous.    The  language  is  that  of  an  observer  who 
recalls  the  scene.     Saying,  How  knoweth 
this  man  letters,  having  never  learned? 
To  know  letters,  means  to  have  literary  cul- 
ture or  knowledge— to  be  trained  in  the  schools 
and  familiar  with  books.     But  the  learning  of 
the  Jews  was  chiefly  religious,  founded  on  the 
Old    Testament    Scriptures,    or    relating    to 
them;  and,  by  the  way  in  which  he  was  now 
teaching,  Jesus  proved  himself  to  be  a  master 
of  language,  of  interpretation,  and,  perhaps, 
of  Rabbinic  lore.     At  this,  the  Jewish  leaders 
were  astonished ;  for  they  knew  that  he  had 
been  taught  by  none  of  their  famous  masters. 
Yet  it  was  the  form  of  his  teaching,  and  not 
its  substance,  which  attracted  their  attention 
and  excited  their  wonder.     For  they  were  too 
unspiritual  to  be  moved  by  its  greatest  excel- 
lence—the sublime  and  saving  truth  which  it 
made  known. 

16.  Jesus  answered  them,  and  said. 
The  language  in  which  their  astonishment 
found  a  somewhat  incautious  expression  was 
not  addressed  to  Jesus,  but  it  was  known  to 


him,  and  was  answered  in  the  following  words : 
My  doctrine  (or,  teaching)  is  not  mine, 
but  his  that  sent  me.  This  expression  must 
have  recalled  to  the  minds  of  some  what  he 
had  said  to  them  during  his  last  previous  visit 
to  Jerusalem  (see  5:  19-30  sq. ),  when  they  ac- 
cused him  of  blasphemy,  and  sought  his  life. 
(5:18).  He  declares  once  more  his  insepara- 
ble union  with  God.  His  teaching  is  in  no 
sense  or  degree  from  himself,  considered  apart 
from  the  Father.  His  message,  rather,  is 
God's  message;  his  learning,  the  wisdom  of 
God.  He  is  not  dependent  on  human  masters 
for  instruction;  for  he  knows  intuitively,  and 
reveals  perfectly,  the  mind  of  the  invisible 
Father. 

17.  If  any  man  will  do  his  will,  he  shall 
know  of  the  doctrine  (or,  teaching), 
whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I 
speak  of  myself.  The  first  clause  should  be 
translated :  If  any  man  loilleth  (or,  is  willing) 
to  do  his  will.  These  words  reveal  a  great 
spiritual  law,  namely,  that  the  moral  attitude 
of  a  person  will  affect  his  view  of  the  character 
and  teaching  of  Christ.  One  who  is  prepared 
to  obey  the  will  of  God  from  the  heart,  will 
see  the  purity  of  Christ's  character,  and  the 
divine  certainty  of  what  he  teaches  But  one 
who  is  in  spirit  thoroughly  Sv3lf-seeking,  and 
unprepared  to  do  the  will  of  God,  will  look 
upon  Christ,  the  holj\  through  the  atmosphere 
of  his  own  selfish  character,  and  will  therefore 
hear  his  teaching  witliout  perceiving  that  it 
bears  the  unmistakable  impress  of  heaven. 
It  is  the  pure  in  heart  who  see  God  ;  it  is  t  e 
childlike  tt)  whom  he  reveals  the  things  of  his 
kingdom.  (Matt,  ii:  25).  A  right  will  tends  to 
just  judgment  and  knowledge  of  truth;  a 
perver.se  will  darkens  the  understanding,  and 
leads  to  error.  Hence,  an  obedient  spirit  is 
indispensable,  in  order  to  a  proper  estimate  of 
the  evidence  on  which  divine  truth  rests,  or 
by  which  it  is  commended  to  rational  confi- 
dence. 

18.  He  that  speaketh  of  (or, /rom)  him- 
self.     The   emphasis   belongs  to   the   words 


Ch.  VIL] 


JOHN. 


173 


glory:  but  he  that  seeketh  his  glory  that  sent  him,  the 
same  is  true,  and  no  unrighteousness  is  in  him. 

19  "Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law,  and  yet  none  of 
you  Iceepeth  the  law  ?    ''  Why  go  ye  about  to  kill  me? 

20  The  people  answered  and  suid,  "Thou  hast  a  devil: 
whogoeth  about  to  kill  thee? 

21  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  I  have  done 
one  work,  and  ye  all  marvel. 

'il  ''Moses  therefore  gave  unto  you  circumcision; 
(not  because  it  is  of  Moses,  «but  of  the  fathers;)  and  ye 
on  the  sabbath  day  circumcise  a  man. 

a  Ex.  2i:  3;  Deut.  33:  .;  oh.  1 :  17 ;  Acts  7 :  38 b  Matt.  12:  14;  Mark  3:6;  cb.  5:  16,  18;  10:  31,  39;  11 :  53 cch.8:  48,  52;  10-  20 

d  Lev.  12 ;  3 e  Geu.  17  :  10. 


he  that  seeketh  the  glory  of  him  that  sent  him,  the 

19  same  is  true,  and  no  unrighteousness  is  in  him.  Did 
not  Moses  give  you  the  law,  and  yet  none  of  you 

20  doeth  the  law  ?    Why  seek  ye  to  kill  me?    The  mul- 
titude answered,  thou  hast  a  demon;  who  seeketh 

21  to  kill  thee?    Jesus  answered  aud  said  unto  them, 
I  did  one  work,  and  ye  all  marvel  because  thereof. 

22  Moses  hath  given  you  circumcision  (not  that  it  is  of 
Moses,  but  of  the  fathers) ;  aud  on  the  sabbath  ye 


from  himself^  as  their  position  in  the  original 
sentence  shows.  He  whose  teaching  has  no 
other  source  than  himself— the  man  whose 
words  are  prompted  by  his  own  wisdom  and 
will,  and  by  nothing  else— seeketh  his  own 
glory.  And  a  self-seeking  teacher  cannot  be 
trusted;  his  doctrine  is  likely  to  be  false. 
This,  manifestly,  is  the  unexpressed  thought 
of  Jesus;  and  it  was  unexpressed  because  it 
was  certain  to  be  supplied  by  the  minds  of 
those  to  whom  he  was  speaking.  Moreover, 
this  is  one  of  the  sayings  of  Christ  which  sug- 
gest the  doctrine  that  selfishness  is  the  root  of 
sin.  But  he  that  seeketh  his  glory  that 
sent  him,  the  same  is  true,  and  no  un- 
righteousness is  in  him.  The  last  clause 
might  be  translated  :  ''^ And  unrighteousness  in 
him  there  is  not'^ — the  emphasis  being  on  the 
words  unrighteousness  in  him..  Thus  Jesus 
claims  to  be  seeking  without  selfishness  the 
glory  of  the  Father  who  sent  him,  to  be  abso- 
luteh'  truthful  in  his  teaching,  and,  indeed,  to 
be  without  sin.  If  one  of  these  claims  be  ad- 
mitted, all  must  be  admitted.  They  stand  or 
fall  together.  He  that  seeks  not  his  own  glory, 
but  that  of  God  only,  has  no  motive  to  speak 
anything  untrue,  or  to  do  anything  wrong. 

19.  Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law, 
and  yet  none  of  you  keepeth  the  law? 
Why  go  ye  about  (lit.,  seek  ve)  to  kill  me? 
Tliese  words  were  evidently  addressed  to  "the 
Jews,"  and  not  to  the  multitude  of  common 
people.  "The  Jews''  had  received  through 
Moses  the  law  of  God,  but  they  were  not  obey- 
ing it,  were  unwilling  to  obey  it;  and  hence, 
according'  to  verse  17,  they  could  not  justly 
expect  to  know  whether  Christ's  teaching 
was,  or  was  not,  from  God.  They  were  not 
in  sympathy  with  the  law  of  God  given  to 
them  by  their  honored  deliverer,  Moses;  how, 
til  en,  could  they  recognize  the  words  of  Jesus 
as  divine?  The  word  law  appears  to  be  used 
in  a  general  sense  of  the  whole  Mosaic  code ; 


but  one  of  its  precepts  they  were  now  planning 
to  break  by  killing  Jesus. 

20.  The  people  (lit.,  multitude)  answered 
and.  said.  Thou  hast  a  devil  (or,  demon)  : 
who  goeth  about  (or,  seeketh) to  kill  thee? 
This  multitude  was  probably  composed,  for 
the  most  part,  of  people  from  Galilee,  who 
knew  nothing  of  the  deadly  purpose  of  "the 
Jews"  at  Jerusalem.  They  were  surprised  at 
the  charge  which  appeared  to  be  made  against 
them.  It  seemed  to  them  a  dark  suspicion, 
like  that  which  was  supposed  to  be  injected 
into  the  soul  by  a  demon.  But  those  who 
were  specially  addressed  bj-  Jesus  maintained 
a  prudent  silence;  for  they  understood  very 
well  that  the  multitude  would  not  tolerate  any 
violence  against  him. 

21.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them. 
That  is,  his  words  were  still  open,  and  ad- 
dressed apparently  to  all,  though  they  were 
intended  chiefly  for  "the  Jews,"  who  had 
charged  him  with  breaking  the  Sabbath  by  a 
work  of  healing.  I  have  done  (did)  one 
Avork,  and  ye  all  marvel.  The  work  re- 
ferred to  was  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man. 
(5:  1-15).  Jesus  does  not  hesitate  to  call  it  a 
work,  though  he  had  done  it  on  the  Sabbath. 
And  his  language  proves  that  they  were  still 
wondering,  or  pretending  to  wonder,  that  he 
had  ventured  to  do  that  great  and  merciful 
work  on  the  Sabbath.  Many  interpreters  con- 
nect with  this  clause  the  words  therefore  (on 
account  of  this,  or,  for  this  cnuse,  Sia.  toOto), 
which  generally  stand  at  the  beginning,  and 
rarely,  if  ever,  in  John,  at  the  end  of  a  clause. 
It  appears  safest,  therefore,  to  connect  them 
with  the  next  verse. 

22.  The  exact  meaning  of  this  verse  is  a 
matter  of  doubt,  though  the  general  object  of 
it  is  manifest.  If  the  words  translated  there- 
fore,/o?*  this  cause,  are  genuine,  and  do  not 
belong  to  the  preceding  sentence,  Clirist  may 
be  understood  to  teach  (1)  that  one  reason  for 


174 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VIL 


23  If  a  man  on  the  sabbath  day  receive  circnuacision, 
that  the  law  of  Moses  should  hot  be  broken;  are  ye 
angry  at  me,  because  "  I  have  made  a  man  every  whit 
whole  on  the  sabbath  day? 

21  'Judge  not  according  to  the  appearance,  but  judge 
righteous  judgment. 


23  circumcise  a  man.  If  a  man  receiveth  circuiucisiou 
on  the  sabbath,  that  the  law  of  Moses  may  not  be 
broken;  are  ye  wroth  with  me,  because  I  made'   a 

24  man  every  whit  whole  on  the  sabbath?  ,Tude  not 
according  to  appearance,  but  judge  righteous  judg- 
ment. 


o  oh.  5:  8,  9,  16..   .b  Deut.  1 :  16,  17  ;  Prov.  'U:  23;  ch.  8  :  15  ;  James  2  :  1. 1  Gr.  a  whole  man  sound. 


giving  to  circumcision  the  place  which  it  had 
in  the  Mosaic  economj',  as  a  work  tliat  ought 
to  be  performed  on  the  eighth  day  after  birth, 
even  if  that  day  should  be  a  Sabbath,  was  to 
guard  the  people  against  the  precise  error  into 
which  "the  Jews"  had  now  fallen.  God,  in 
his  deep  counsel,  had  warned  his  people,  by 
the  rite  of  circumcision,  against  an  outward 
and  over-scrupulous  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath. If  this  be  a  correct  view  of  the  mean- 
ing, the  idea  of  Jesus  as  to  the  aim  of  the  law 
may  be  compared  with  that  of  Paul,  in  1  Cor. 
9:9;  and  the  verse  may  be  translated  thus: 
Fo7-  this  cause  hath  Moses  given  you  circum- 
cisioJi  {not  that  it  is  from  Moses,  but  from  the 
fathers),  and  on  the  Sabbath  ye  circu^ncise  a 
man.  The  connection  of  thought  is  very 
natural  with  this  interpretation;  but  it  may 
seem  improbable  to  those  who  see  very  little 
that  is  deep  and  spiritual  in  the  ritual  of  Mo- 
saism.  Again,  Christ  may  be  understood  to 
teach  (2)  that  the  law  of  circumcision  super- 
sedes that  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  because  it 
is  more  ancient,  having  been  first  given  to  the 
patriarchs,  while  that  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
was  first  given  to  Moses.  Underneath  this 
representation  may  lie  the  postulate  that  the 
religious  rites  or  duties  first  revealed  are  the 
most  fundamental  and  controlling.  "With  this 
view  of  the  Lord's  meaning,  his  words  may 
be  properly  translated:  For  this  cause  hath 
Mo.ses  given  to  you  circumcision,  not  because 
it  is  from  Moses,  but  (because  it  is)  from  the 
fathers;  and  on  the  Sabbath  ye  circumcise  a 
man.  In  other  words :  Moses  has  given  you 
circumcision  for  this  reason,  namely,  because 
it  is  from  the  fathers.  The  previous  negation, 
not  because  it  is  from  Moses,  is  only  inserted 
for  the  purpose  of  contrasting  the  later  law 
with  the  earlier.  This  interpretation  is  sus- 
tained by  Meyer,  and  deserves  respectful  con- 
sideration, though  we  prefer  the  one  first 
given. 

But  if  Jesus  here  assumes  that  the  Jewish 
law  of  the  Sabbath  was  unknown  to  the  fa- 
thers, can  we  safely  teach  that  the  Sabbath 
was  instituted  in  Eden?  (ceu. 2:2,3),     Not  the 


Sabbath  of  the  Mosaic  law,  with  its  rigid  ces- 
sation from  labor,  and  its  immediate  jienalty 
for  transgression  ;  but  a  Sabbath,  or  holy  da3% 
consecrated  to  spiritual  service  and  iinjirove- 
ment.  It  is  easy  to  suppose  that  Jesus  referred 
exclusively  to  the  post-Mosaic  Sabbath  of  the 
Jews  ;  for  of  this,  and  of  this  onlj',  would  his 
hearers  be  likely  to  think  ;  while  the  pre-Mo- 
saic  Sabbath  must  be  establisiied  by  other 
evidence.  This  expression  is,  therefore,  con- 
sistent with  the  supposition  that  the  seventh 
day  was  consecrated  and  set  apart  in  a  general 
way  to  religious  service  from  the  beginning. 

23.  If  a  man  on  the  Sabbath  day  re- 
ceive circumcision,  that  the  law  of  Moses 
should  not  be  broken,  are  ye  angry  at 
me,  because  I  made  a  man  every  whit 
whole  on  the  Sabbath  day?  In  order  to 
a  proper  observance  of  the  Mosaic  law,  the 
prohibition  of  work  on  the  Sabbath  must  give 
way  to  the  requirement  of  circumcision  on 
the  eighth  day  after  birth  ;  much  more  then 
must  that  prohibition  give  way  to  the  great 
requirement  of  love  to  one's  neighbor,  ful- 
filled in  restoring  a  whole  man  to  hcaltli. 
(Compare  Mark  2:27;  3:4;  Luke  6:  9;  18: 
15,  16).  Where  there  is  an  apparent  conflict 
in  the  precepts  of  the  law,  the  less  important 
rule  must  yield  to  the  more  important  rule. 
In  this  way  only  can  the  law  be  obeyed. 
And  one  who  considers  the  highest  object  of 
the  Sabbath  to  be,  not  bodily  rest,  but  re-  ' 
ligiousand  beneficent  service,  will  not  hesitate 
in  deciding  which  must  yield— the  require- 
ment of  love  or  the  requirement  of  rest. 

34.  Judge  not  according  to  the  ap- 
pearance, but  judge  righteous  judgment. 
The  before  appearance  is  witiiout  au- 
thority, and  should  be  omitted.  To  judge 
according  to  appearance,  or  according  to  what 
is  seen,  is  rarely  just.  But  to  go  back  of  the 
merely  external  act  to  the  motive  which 
prompts  it,  and  beneath  the  letter  of  the  law 
to  its  aim  and  spirit,  is  the  judgment  which  is 
righteous.  Thus  Christ  said  that  "on  love  to 
God  and  love  to  man,  hang  all  tlie  law  and  the 
prophets"    (Matt. 22:40;,   and   that    "whosoever 


Ch.  VIL] 


JOHN. 


175 


25  Then  said  some  of  them  of  Jerusalem,  Is  not  this 
he,  whom  they  seek  to  kill  ? 

26  But,  lo,  he  spoaketh  boldly,  and  they  say  nothing 
unto  him.  "  Do  the  rulers  know  indeed  that  this  is  the 
very  Christ  ? 

27  'Howbeit  we  know  this  man  whence  he  is:  but 
when  Christ  Cometh,  no  man  knoweth  whence  he  is. 

28  Then  cried  .lesus  in  the  temple  as  he  taught,  say- 
ing, =  Ye  both  know  me,  and  ye  know  whence  1  am: 
and  "^I  am  not  come  of  myself,  but  he  that  sent  me  '  is 
true,  /whom  ye  know  not. 


25  Some  therefore  of  them  of  Jerusalem  said,  Is  not 

26  this  he  whom  they  seek  to  kill?  And  lo,  he  speaketh 
openly,  and  they  say  nothing  unto  him.  (  an  it  be 
that  the  rulers  indeed  know  that  this  is  the  Christ? 

27  Ilowbeit  we  know  this  man  whence  he  is:  but  when 
the  Christ  cometh,  no  one  knoweth  whence  he  is. 

28  Jesus  therefore  cried  in  the  temjjle,  teaching  and 
saying,  Ve  t)oth  know  me,  and  know  whence  lam; 
and  I  am  not  come  of  myself,  but  he  that  sent  uie 


. ./  ch  1 :  18- 


looketh  on  a  woman,  to  lust  after  her,  hath 
committed  adultery  with  her  already  in  his 
heart"  (M;itt.5:28).  Moreover,  he  clearly  taught 
that  some  matters  required  by  the  law  were 
weightier  than  others  (Matt.  23: 23).  So  in  the 
present  instance,  the  act  of  healing,  by  which 
he  was  charged  with  breaking  the  law  of 
Moses,  was  in  harmony  with  one  of  its 
broadest  and  most  spiritual  commands.  Those 
who  judged  otherwise  judged  according  to 
appearance,  and  their  judgment  was  really 
unrighteous. 
25-31.  Second  Scene  in  the  Temple. 

25.  Then  said  some  of  them  of  Jeru- 
salem, Is  not  this  he  whom  they  seek 
to  kill?  The  people  of  Jerusalem,  in  dis- 
tinction from  those  of  other  parts  of  the  land 
(see  note  on  ver.  20),  were  aware  of  the  mur- 
derous design  of  "the  Jews,"  or  leaders  of 
the  nation,  and  they  were,  on  that  account, 
surprised  at  the  freedom  with  which  Jesus 
wa?  now  speaking  in  public. 

26.  But  (and)  lo,  he  speaketh  boldly, 
and  they  say  nothing  unto  him.  Do  the 
rulers  knoAV  indeed  [in  truth)  that  this  is 
the  very  Christ?  Very  before  Christ  is  to 
be  omitted.  This  question  may  be  ironical ; 
implying  that  the  conduct  of  "the  Jews" 
was  such  as  would  be  natural  if  they  had  as- 
certained in  truth  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah. 
But  the  speakers  themselves  were  too  well 
informed  to  entertain  such  a  belief.  Or, 
noticing  the  force  of  the  words  "in  truth" 
(oA))5(is),  the  question  may  be  understood  as 
suggesting,  and  at  the  same  time  rejeci:ing, 
what  seemed  to  the  speakers  the  only  natural 
reason  for  the  rulers'  course.  "The  rulers 
have  not  at  any  time  come  really  to  know 
that  this  is  the  Christ?"  They  may  suppose 
that  they  have  come  to  know  this  ;  but  it  can- 
not be  that  they  have  really  ascertained  it. 

27.  Howbeit— whatever  they  may  think — 
ure  know  this  man  whence   he  is :    but 


when  {the)  Christ  cometh,  no  man  know- 
eth whence  he  is.  This  is  their  sufflcient 
reason  for  holding  it  impossible  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ.  Though  it  was  understood  that 
the  Messiah  was  to  be  of  the  seed  of  David, 
and  from  the  town  of  Bethleliem,  where 
David  was  (ver.  42),  it  was  also  believed  that 
his  origin  and  manifestation  were  to  be  mys- 
terious and  supernatural.  Was  he  not  to  be 
Wonderful,  Counsellor,  Mighty  God,  Ever- 
lasting Father,  Prince  of  Peace?  Was  he 
not  to  come  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  ?  to 
come  suddenly  to  his  temple?  (tsa.oie;  Dan. 7: 
13;  Mai. 3:  1).  How  Were  these  predictions  to  be 
reconciled  with  his  being  the  son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary,  whom  they  supposed  that  they 
knew  to  be  his  parents?  Could  the  son  of  a 
common  carpenter;  could  a  man  whose 
parents  and  brothers  and  sisters  were  well 
known,  be  the  expected  Christ  of  God?  Im- 
possible. The  expression  "whence  he  is" 
does  not  therefore  refer  to  the  birth-place,  so 
much  as  to  the  particular  fitmily  and  circum- 
stances of  Jesus,  or  of  the  Christ. 

28.  Then  cried  Jesus  (better :  Jesus 
therefore  cried)  in  the  temple  as  he  taught, 
saying.  The  word  cried  indicates  a  force  of 
utterance  that  was  occasioned  by  strong  feel- 
ing. (Compare  1:  15;  7:  37;  12:  44;  Rom.  9: 
27).  No  wonder  that  he  was  moved  at  the 
persistence  of  the  people  in  judging  according 
to  appearance.  (See  on  ver.  24).  The  Evan- 
gelist also  calls  attention  to  the  circumstance 
that  the  following  words  were  uttered  by  Je- 
sus while  he  was  still  in  the  temple  teaching; 
and  this  particularity  is  a  mark  of  truth.  Ye 
both  know  me,  and  ye  know  whence  I 
am.  "We  must  guard  against  seeing,  with 
Mej'er,  a  concession  in  these  two  propositions. 
It  is  true :  you  know  me  up  to  a  certain  point, 
but  not  completely.  The  tone  of  the  two 
conjunctions  (translated  '  both,'  '  and ' )  has  evi- 
dently a  touch  of  irony,  and  the  two  proposi- 


176 


JOHN. 


[Ch.   VII. 


29  But  "I  know  him:  for  I  am  from  him,  aud  he  hath 
sent  me. 

30  Then  'they  sought  to  take  him  :  but  «no  man  laid 
hands  on  him,  because  his  hour  was  not  yet  cume. 

31  And  ''many  ol  the  peoijle  believed  on  him,  and 
said,  When  Christ  cometh,  will  he  do  more  miracles 
than  these  which  this  man  hath  done? 


29  is  true,  whom  ye  know  not.     I  know  him ;  because 

30  1  am  Irom  him,  and  he  sent  me.  They  sought  there- 
fore to  take  him :  and   no   man   Uiicl   his   hand  <iu 

31  hiui,  because  his  hour  was  not  yet  cume.  But  of  the 
multitude  many  believed  on  him;  and  they  said, 
When  the  Christ  shall  come,  will  he  do  more  siiius 


a  Matt.  II:  27;  ch.  10:  15 6  Mark  11: 18;  Luke  19:  47;  20:  19;  ver.  19;  ch.  8:  37 c  ver.«;  ch.  8:  20 dMutt.  12;  23;  ch.3:  2;R:  30. 


tions  have  therefore  an  interrogative  force." — 
{G-odoi).  The  meaning,  however,  is  almost 
etfrfally  good,  if  these  words  be  regarded  as  a 
concession  that  liis  hearers  have  a  certain 
amount  of  knowledge  as  to  his  human  person 
and  history,  but  a  knowledge  which  is,  never- 
theless, at  best,  supei'licial,  not  reaching  back 
to  his  true  origin,  nor  explaining  the  super- 
natural character  of  his  ministry.  And  I  am 
not  come  of  myself.  Though  you  infer, 
from  your  knowledge  of  my  earthly  home 
and  life,  that  I  am  a  mere  man,  self-sent,  I 
am  not  this.  You  know  not  "whence  I  am," 
for  you  suppose  me  to  have  set  myself,  unau- 
thorized, to  this  work.  (See  on  the  woi-ds  "of 
myself,"  5  :  19,  30;  7:  17,  18,  with  Notes).  But 
he  that  sent  me  is  true.  On  the  word 
translated  true,  which  does  not  mean  truth- 
ful, but,  rather,  tliat  which  realizes  the  higliest 
idea  of  the  object  in  question,  see  Notes  on 
1:9;  4:  23;  6:  32.  Whether  Jesus  means  to 
say  tliat  the  One  by  whom  he  has  been  sent 
realizes  in  himself  tlie  true  and  perfect  idea  of 
a  Sender  (Meyer),  or,  rather,  the  true  and 
perfect  idea  of  Being — of  the  very  God — is 
not  material  to  the  course  of  thought;  yet  we 
are  inclined  to  the  latter  view,  because  the 
people  must  have  been  already  aware  of  his 
claim  to  be  the  Sent  of  God,  and  would  there- 
fore be  likely  to  think  that  the  word  true  was 
used  of  him  in  a  comprehensive  sense.  Whom 
ye  know  not — i.  e.,  in  any  spiritual  sense  of 
the  word.  They  knew  about  God,  but  they 
did  not  k:-;ow  God.  They  had  no  appreciation 
of  his  character.  How,  then,  could  they 
know  "whence  Jesus  was"?  And  if  they 
did  not,  in  the  highest  respect,  know  "whence 
he  was,"  their  argument  against  his  being  the 
Christ  fell  to  the  ground.  Observe,  also,  that 
the  pronoun  ye  is  slightlj'  emphatic,  preparing 
their  minds  for  the  next  sentence. 

29.  But  I  know  him,  etc.  This  verse  is 
well  translated  in  the  Revised  Version:  / 
/enow  him;  because  lam  from  him,  and  he  sent 
me.  That  is:  My  knowledge  of  the  absolutely 
real  Being  is  certain,  real,  immediate;  for  I 


am  from  his  immediate  presence  and  fellow- 
ship, and  he  is  the  One  who  sent  me.  (Com- 
pare Notes  on  1:  1,  14,  19;  6:  46).  These 
words  are  even  more  emphatic  by  reason  of 
the  independent  position  which  they  hold 
without  the  conjunction  but,  which  is  omitted 
by  the  best  critical  authorities.  Thus  Jesus 
declares,  in  terms  of  wonderful  simplicity  and 
force,  his  divine  knowledge,  origin,  and  mis- 
sion—in a  word,  "whence  he  was." 

30.  Then  they  sought  (or,  they  sought, 
therefore)  to  take  him.  His  claim  to  a 
strictly  divine  origin  and  mission  rekindled 
the  deadly  animosity  of  "the  Jews,"  or  mem- 
bers of  the  Sanhedrin,  and  led  to  a  resump- 
tion and  continuance  of  their  plotting  to  take 
Jesus  by  violence,  that  they  might  put  liim  to 
death.  But  (rather,  and)  no  man  laid 
hands  (or,  his  hand)  on  him,  because  his 
hour  was  not  yet  come.  The  plots  of  his 
enemies  were  not  carried  into  effect  at  once, 
because  the  time  appointed  by  God  for  the 
termination  of  his  ministry  was  still  in  the  fu- 
ture. The  Evangelist  looks  at  the  course  of 
events  from  the  highest  religious  point  of  view. 
What  is  brought  about  by  the  agency  of  sec- 
ond causes  he  regards  as  a  fultillment  of  the 
will  and  purpose  of  the  First  Cause.  The  mo- 
tive which  restrained  "the  Jews"  may  have 
been  fear  of  the  people,  who  were  friend!3-  to 
Jesus;  but  the  divine  purpt)se  was  none  the 
less  real  and  controlling.     (Compare  8:  20). 

31.  And  many  of  the  people,  etc.  See 
Revised  Version  :  But  of  the  multitude  tnnny 
believed  on  him  ;  and  they  said.  Observe  the 
emphasis  which  is  given  to  the  expression  the 
ynultitnde  by  its  position  at  the  beginning  of 
the  sentence,  and  which  shows  that  those  re- 
ferred to  in  the  preceding  verse  as  "seeking 
to  seize  Jesus,"  were  not  "of  the  multitude." 
Observe,  also,  that  the  words  believed  on  him 
must,  in  agreement  witli  what  follows,  signifj', 
were  convinced  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ. 
For  this  is  the  import  of  "  what  they  were  say- 
ing to  one  another"  :  When  Christ  cometh 
— an  expression  not  intended  to  rei)resent  their 


Ch.  VII.] 


JOHN. 


177 


32  The  Pharisees  heard  that  the  people  murmured 
such  things  concerning  liini :  and  tlie  Tliarisees  and 
the  chief  priests  si'iit  othcers  to  take  him. 

;{3  Then  said  .resus  unto  them,  "  Yet  a  little  while  am 
I  with  you,  and  llifti  1  go  unto  him  that  sent  me. 

;i4  Ye  *  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  not  find  me:  and 
where  I  am,  thither  ye  cannot  come. 


32  than  those  which  this  man  hath  done?  The  Phari- 
sees heard  the  multitude  murmuring  these  things 
concerning  him  ;  and  the  chief  priests  and  the  Phari- 

33  sees  sent  otlicers  to  take  him.  Jesus  therefore  said, 
Yet  a  little  while  am  I  with  you,  and  I  go  unto  him 

34  that  sent  me.    Ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  not  tiud 


a  ch.  13:33;  16:  16 5  Uo3.5:6;  cb.  8:  -21;  13:  33. 


own  view,  but,  rather,  that  of  the  persons 
spoken  of  in  ver.  30.  It  was  a  timid  reply, 
uttered  in  low  tones  of  voice,  to  the  enemies 
of  Jesus:  You  say  that  this  is  a  blasphemer, 
and  not  the  Christ;  but,  if  this  be  so,  wheii 
{the')  Christ  cometh,  will  he  do  more 
miracles  {signs)  than  these  which  this 
man  hath  done?  that  is,  here,  in  Jerusalem 
{5;  3sq.),  and,  more  recently,  in  Galilee.  This 
interpretation  agrees  with  the  obvious  force  of 
the  words  believed  on  him  much  better  than 
the  interpretation  which  supposes  that  the 
many  here  spoken  of  uttered  them  doubt- 
ingly. — Lnnge.  It  is  also  clear  from  this  ques- 
tion of  the  people,  that  miracles  were  looked 
upon  as  proper  credentials  of  the  Messiah. 
He  was  expected  to  perform  them.  And  it 
nuiy  be  added  that  the  form  of  the  question, 
in  the  original,  is  one  that  anticipates  a  nega- 
tive answer.  The  Christ  will  not  do  more 
signs  than  this  man  has  done. 

32-36.  Third  Scene  in  the  Contro- 
versy. 

33.  The  Pharisees  heard  that  the  peo- 
ple murmured,  etc.  We  translate  as  follows  : 
The  Pharisees  heard  the  multitude  'inurmur- 
ing  these  things  concerning  him.  Tiiough 
the  multitude,  many  of  them,  believed  in  Je- 
sus as  the  Christ,  their  belief  did  not  render 
them  bold  and  decided  in  action.  Their  com- 
ments in  reply  to  the  enemies  of  Jesus  were 
made  to  one  another  in  a  low  voice,  and  were 
not  specially  intended  for  the  ear  of  those 
enemies.  Yet  they  were  heard,  and  were  the 
occasion  of  an  ineffectual  attempt  to  seize 
Jesus.  And  the  Pharisees  and  the  chief 
priests  sent  officers  to  take  him.  It  ap- 
pears that  the  Pharisees  instigated  this  attempt 
to  take  Jesus,  but  they  easily  secured  the  co- 
operation of  th*e  chief  priests,  who  at  that  time 
were,  for  the  most  part,  Sadducecs.  Perhaps 
the  Sanhedrin  was  called  together  that  the 
officers,  or  beadles^  might  be  clothed  with  its 
authority. 

33.  Then  said  Jesus.  (Better:  Jesus 
therefore  said).     That  is,  in  consequence  of 


M 


the  events  related  in  ver.  82.  The  first  appear- 
ance of  officers  sent  to  take  Jesus  was  a  token 
of  coming  events,  and  led  him  to  speak  of 
these  events  somewhat  plainly.  The  words 
unto  them  (avrois),  are  omitted  by  the  best 
editors.  Yet  a  little  while  am  I  with  you, 
and  then  I  go  unto  him  that  sent  me. 
Omit  the  word  then  as  needless.  His  mission 
is  not  yet  accomplished,  and  therefore  he  is 
to  remain  with  them,  friend  and  foe,  a  while 
longer.  By  you,  he  means  principally  those 
who  are  anxious  to  compass  his  death.  They 
must  wait  a  little.  The  time  of  his  departure 
is  near,  but  it  is  not  fully  come.  When  it 
comes,  he  is  to  go  to  that  niost  real  of  all  be- 
ings, tlieOne  who  had  sent  him  into  the  world, 
but  of  whom  they  had  no  true  knowledge. 

34.  Ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  not 
find.  To  what  does  this  refer?  To  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  according  to  Meyer. 
(See  Luke  20:  16  sq. ;  19:  43.)  "Then  will 
the  tables  be  turned.  After  they  have  perse- 
cuted and  killed  him  when  present,  they  will 
earnestly  but  vainly  desire  to  have  him  with 
them  again,  as  the  miraculous  Helper  who 
alone  can  rescue  them  from  the  direst  evil." 
But  this  interpretation  is  too  narrow.  The 
language  of  Christ  probably  denotes  that 
their  longing  and  looking  for  the  Messiah  will 
continue  after  having  rejected  him  and  cruci- 
fied him.  Vainly  will  they  expect  the  great 
Prince  foretold  in  their  Scriptures,  and  bitter 
will  be  their  disappointment,  from  age  to  age, 
because  he  does  not  appear.  But  clinging  to 
their  fiilse  view  of  what  the  Messiah  should 
be,  and  hardening  themselves  against  the  evi- 
dence that  he  has  already  appeared  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  they  will  never 
find  the  deliverer  whom  they  seek.  Though 
eager  to  welcome  folse  Christs,  they  will  look 
in  vain  for  a  real  Saviour,  whether  for  this 
life  or  for  the  future.  And  Avhere  I  am, 
thither  ye  cannot  come.  Into  the  blessed 
and  holy  presence  of  the  Father  they  could 
never  come,  while  rejecting  his  Son.  Jesus 
himself  was  the  way,  and,  disbelieving  him, 


178 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VII. 


35  Then  said  the  Jews  among  themselves,  Whither 
■will  he  go,  that  we  shall  not  find  him  ?  will  he  go  unto 
"the  dispersed  among  the  Gentiles,  and  teach  the  Gen- 
tiles? 

3G  What  manner  of  saying  is  this  that  he  said,  Ye  shall 
seek  me,  and  shall  not  find  me :  and  where  I  am,  thither 
ye  cannot  come? 

37  '  In  the  last  day,  that  great  day  of  the  feast,  Jesus 
stood  and  cried,  saying,  ''If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come 
unto  me,  and  drink. 


35  me :  and  where  I  am,  ye  cannot  come.  The  Jews 
therefore  said  among  themselves,  Whither  will  this 
man  go  that  we  shall  not  find  him?  will  he  go  unto 
the  Dispersion  i  among  the  Greeks,  and  teach  the 

36  Greeks?  What  is  this  word  that  he  said.  Ye  shall 
seek  me,  and  shall  not  find  me:  and  where  I  am,  ye 
cannot  come? 

37  Now  ou  the  last  day,  the  great  day  of  the  feast, 
Jesus  stood  and  cried,  saying,  If  any  man  thirst,  let 


;Isii.  11:  12;  James  1 :  1;  1  Pet.  1:1 b  Lev.  23:  36 c  Isa.  55  :  1 ;  ch.  6  :  35;  Rev.  22:  17. 1  Gr.  of. 


they  would  never  find  tlie  Father,  to  whom 
he  would  have  led  them  gladly.  The  present, 
am,  is  u-sed  in  vivid  delineation  for  the  fu- 
ture, "shall  be." 

35.  Then  {therefore)  said  the  Jews 
amon^  themselves:  literally,  to  themselves. 
They  did  not  address  their  words  to  Jesus,  but 
to  one  another,  and  jjrobably  in  a  mocking 
tone.  Whither  will  he  go,  that  Ave  shall 
not  find  him?  will  he  go  unto  the  dis- 
persed among  the  Gentiles  (Greeks),  and 
teach  the  Gentiles  (Greeks)  i  Thus  they 
pay  no  attention  to  the  saying  of  Jesus  :  I  go 
to  him  that  sent  me,  but  in  a  tone  of  levity 
and  contempt,  not  unmingled  with  perplexity, 
comment  on  his  other  statements.  But  the 
form  of  the  question  :  "  Will  he  go  unto  the 
dispersed?"  etc.,  shows  that  it  offered  to 
their  own  minds  no  probable  explanation  of 
his  words;  for  it  is  the  form  which  looks  to  a 
negative  answer.  (See  on  ver.  31.)  Yet  the 
apostles  of  Christ  afterwards  did  just  what  is 
here  suggested. 

36.  What  manner  of  saying  is  this  (or, 
what  is  this)  that  he  said.  Notice  the  use  of 
the  verb  is,  instead  of  "means,"'  or  "signi- 
fies," and  compare  with  it  the  same  word  in  the 
controverted  expression,  "This  is  my  body." 
Ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  not  find  me  : 
and  where  I  am,  thither  ye  cannot  come. 
These  words  betray  anxious  perplexity.  The 
language  of  Jesus  has  struck  into  their  souls, 
and  awakened  a  suspicion  that  it  deserves 
more  attention  than  they  are  willing  to  give 
it.  The  tone  of  banter  passes  into  one  of  so- 
briety. And  with  this  remark  John  closes  his 
narrative  of  Christ's  first  appearance  in  the 
temple,  about  the  middle  of  the  festival. 

37-53.  Last  Day  of  the  Feast. 

37.  In  the  last  day,  that  great  (day)  of 
the  feast.  Two  or  three  days  must  have 
passed  since  the  events  related  in  ver.  14-36 
took  place.  How  Jesus  was  employed  during 
those  days,  the  Evangelist  does  not  mention. 


But  it  is  probable  that,  wherever  he  was,  the 
officers  of  the  Sanhedrin  were  on  the  watch 
for  a  favorable  opportunity  to  seize  him  and 
deliver  him  to  their  masters,  (ver.  32-45,  sq.). 
Whether  this  great  day  was,  strictlj'  speak- 
ing, the  last  day  of  the  feast,  or  the  day  which 
followed  the  feast,  but  was  regarded  in  some 
sense  as  its  close,  is  a  question  the  answer  to 
which  is  difficult  and  not  very  important. 
(See  Lev.  23:  35-39;  Num.  29:  35;  Neh.  8: 
18;  2 Mace.  10:  6;  Jo.sephus'  "Ant."  3:  10,  4.) 
John  certainly  regarded  it  as  practically  the 
closing  day  of  this  feast,  which  was  the  last  of 
the  three  great  j-early  festivals.  It  was  in 
character  a  Sabbath,  and  was  on  this  account, 
also,  peculiarly  sacred.  Jesus  stood  and 
cried,  saying.  Thus  John  recollects  the 
very  attitude  of  his  Lord  on  this  occasion,  and 
the  special  solemnity  and  force  of  his  utter- 
ance. Says  Westcott:  "The  original  is  sin- 
gularly vivid :  Jesiis  Avas  standing,  watch- 
ing, as  it  might  be,  the  procession  of  the 
people  from  their  booths  to  the  temple,  atid 
then,  moved  by  some  occasion,  he  cried.' ^  If 
any  man  thirst — that  is,  longs  for  spiritual 
refreshment — let  him  come  unto  me,  and 
drink.  (4: 10,  u;  6:35;  Rev.  22: 17).  Schaff  remarks 
that  "Our  Lord  certainly  seems  to  allude  here 
to  the  custom  which  prevailed  during  the 
seven  days  of  the  feast,  of  a  priest  bringing 
water  in  a  golden  vessel  from  the  Pool  of  Si- 
loam,  with  a  jubilant  procession,  to  the  tem- 
ple, standing  on  the  altar,  and  pouring  it  out 
there,  together  with  wine,  while  meantime  the 
Hallel  (Ps.  cxiii-cxviii)  was  sung"  ;  and  some  ref- 
erence to  this  ceremony  is  assumed  by  a  ma- 
jority of  interpreters.  But  tljere  is  no  very 
obvious  connection  between  that  ceremony 
and  the  words  of  Jesus.  The  water  brought 
from  Siloam  was  poured  out  on  the  west  side 
of  the  altar,  while  wine  was  poured  gut  on  the 
east  side.  There  was  no  drmking  of  either; 
nor  is  it  certain  that  the  water  poured  out  was 
regarded  as  an  emblem   of   water  used  for 


Ch.  VII.] 


JOHN. 


179 


3S  «  He  that  bclieveth  on  me,  as  the  Scripture  hath 
said,  6  out  of  his  belly  shall  How  rivers  of  living  water. 

:V.)  {"  But  this  spake  he  of  the  Spirit,  which  they  that 
believe  on  hiiu  sliouUl  receive:  for  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
not  yet  given;  because  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  ''glori- 
fied.) 


38  hiiu  come  unto  me,  and  drink.  He  that  believcth 
on  me,  as  the  scripture  hath  said,  i  trom  within  him 

39  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water.  But  this  spake  he 
of  the  Spirit,  which  they  that  believed  ou  him  were 
to  receive:  -  for  the  Spirit  was  not  yet  given;  because 


aDeut.  18:  15.... ft  Prov.  18:4;  Isa.  12  :  3  ;  44 :  3  ;  ch.  4: 14. ..  .c  Isa.  44  :  3:  Joel  2:  28;  ch.  16:  7;  Acts  2  :  17;  33,  .38....dch.  12:  16; 
16:  7. 1  ttr.  out  of  his  belly 2  Some  ancient  auihorities  read, /or  the  Holy  Spirit  was  nut  yet  given. 


quenching  thirst,  as,  e.  g.,  the  water  that  flowed 
from  the  rock  smitten  by  Moses.  A  strong 
desire  for  divine  grace,  occasioned  by  a  deep 
sense  of  sin,  is  forcibly  expressed  by  the  word 
thirst.  "As  the  hart  panteth  after  the  water- 
brooks,  so  panteth  my  soul  after  thee,  O 
God."  (Ps.42:i.)  "The  Lord,  Jehovah,  is  my 
strength  and  my  song;  he  also  is  become  my 
salvation.  Therefore  with  joy  shall  ye  draw 
water  out  of  the  wells  of  salvation."  (isa.  12: 2,3.) 
Hence,  there  is  no  particular  need  of  assuming 
that  Jesus  referred  to  the  ceremony  of  pour- 
ing out  water  by  the  altar — a  ceremony  which 
is  not  known  to  have  been  observed  on  the 
eighth  day.  But  if  he  did  allude  to  this  prac- 
tice, it  was  probably  because  the  water  was 
considered  a  memorial  of  the  water  from  the 
rock  in  the  desert,  the  real  source  of  which 
was  Christ.  (1  Cor.  10 :  4.)  See,  also,  1  Sam.  7  :  6, 
with  Note  in  "The  Speaker's  Commentary." 
Accepting  this  reference  as  correct,  it  would 
have  been  extremely  natural  for  Jesus  to  avail 
hims«lf  of  the  water  brought  in  solemn  cere- 
mony from  Siloara  as  a  figure  of  the  "living 
water  "  which  he  would  give  to  receptive  souls. 
38.  He  that  believeth  on  me.  This  ex- 
plains the  figurative  term  "drink."  (Ver. 37.) 
By  believing  on  Christ,  one  receives  him,  as  it 
were,  with  all  that  he  has,  into  his  soul.  In 
other  words,  he  receives  the  Spirit,  who  keeps 
alive  in  his  soul  a  sense  of  pardon,  peace,  hope, 
joy,  and  union  with  Christ;  for  it  is  by  the 
Spirit  that  Christ  imparts  himself  to  those 
who  believe.^  As  the  Scripture  hath  said. 
The  following  words,  to  which  this  statement 
refers,  are  not  found  in  any  one  place  of  the 
Old  Testament ;  but  they  represent  the  thought 
of  several  passages.  Out  of  his  belly  shall 
flow  rivers  of  living  water.  By  this  bold 
figure  of  speech  the  Saviour  assures  his  hear- 
ers that,  believing  on  him,  they  will  become 
fountains  of  spiritual  good,  sending  forth 
streams  of  holy  influence.  The  issues  of  their 
life  will  be  new  and  wonderful.     By  all  the 


1  On  the  grammatical  structure  of  this  verse,  see  Butt- 
man's  "  Grammar  of  the  N.  T.  Greek,"  p.  379  a. 


channels  of  expression  ;  by  spiritual  utter- 
ance, revealing  new  insight,  courage,  patience, 
zeal,  and  joy ;  by  apologetic  wisdom  before 
kings  and  magistrates;  by  holy  steadfastness 
in  suflering  and  death;  by  voice,  and  hand, 
and  e3'e,  and  every  outward  note  of  inward 
life;  by  prophecj"  and  miracle  and  tongues — 
will  the  new  spirit  within  them  be  manifested 
and  made  a  blessing  to  mankind.  Branches  of 
the  true  Vine,  thej'  will  bear  much  fruit.  The 
word  belly,  remarks  Liicke,  "signifies,  in  the 
figurative  language  of  the  Hebrew,  the  inner 
man,  and  is  synonomous  with  heart.  See 
Prov.  20 :  27  ;  Isa.  16 :  11 ;  Sirach  51 :  21."  For 
Biblical  expressions  that  may  have  prepared 
the  way  for  the  figure  of  speech  used  by 
Christ,  reference  may  be  made  to  Ex.  17:  6; 
Num.  20:  11;  Ps.  114:  8;  Isa.  44:  3;  55:  1; 
58:  11 ;  Joel  3:  18;  Ezek.  47:  1, 12;  Zech.  13: 
1 ;  14 :  8. 

39.  But  this  spake  he  of  the  Spirit, 
which  they  that  believe  on  him  should 
receive  :  for  the  Holy  Ghost  (or,  the  Spirit) 
w^as  not  yet  given;  because  that  Jesus 
Avas  not  yet  glorified.  This  translation, 
omitting  given  after  yet,  represents  probably 
all  that  was  in  the  original  text.  And  it 
means  that  the  Spirit  was  not  yet  in  the  souls 
of  believers  after  such  a  manner  as  to  produce 
the  eflTects  suggested  by  the  language  of  Je- 
sus ;  for  these  effects  were  first  to  be  realized 
in  their  fullness  after  his  glorification,  on  the 
Day  of  Pentecost,  and  thenceforward.^   Hence 


1  [The  reading,  the  Spirit  ivas  not  yet,  has  here  the  great 
advantage  that  it  accounts  for  the  rise  of  all  the  others, 
as  "the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  yet,"  "the  Holy  Spirit  was 
not  yet  upon  them,"  "  the  Spirit  was  not  yet  given," 
"the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  yet  given  "  ;  while  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  why  any  one  of  these  should  have  been  re- 
duced to  a  simpler  form,  since  they  are  all  perspicuous 
and  unobjectionable.  The  simple  reading  would  easily 
suggest  such  additions  as  "Holy,"  "  given,"  by  way  of 
supposed  explanation.  West,  and  Hort  here  agree  with 
Tisch.  and  others,  in  adopting  the  simplest  form,  which 
is  given  by  X  T  K  n.  Old  Syriac,  Memphitic,  Thebaic 
(it  has  a  form  growing  out  of  this),  Armenian,  with  Ori- 
gen,  Cyril, etc.  Observe  that  b  has  here  a  "conflate" 
reading,  "  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  yet  given. — B.] 


180 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VII. 


40  Many  of  the  people  therefore,  when  they  heard 
this  sayiug,  said,  Of  a  truth  this  is  "  the  Prophet. 

41  Others  said,  >>  This  is  the  Christ.  But  toiue  said, 
Shall  Christ  come  '  out  of  (iaiilee? 

42  ''  Hath  not  tlie  Scripture  said,  That  Christ  cometh 
of  the  seed  of  David,  and  out  of  the  town  of  Bethlehem, 
«  where  David  was? 

43  t^o /there  was  a  division  among  the  people  because 
of  him. 

44  And  »  some  of  them  would  have  taken  him;  but  no 
man  laid  hands  on  him. 

45  Then  came  the  officers  to  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees;  and  they  said  unto  them,  Why  have  ye  not 
brought  him? 


40  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified.  Some  of  the  multitude 
therefore,  when  they  heard  these  words,  said.  This 

41  is  of  a  truth  the  prophet.  Others  said.  This  is  the 
Christ.    But  some  said,  What,  doth  the  Christ  come 

42  out  of  Galilee?  Hath  not  the  scripti^re  said  that  the 
Christ  cometh  of  the  seed  of  David,  and  from  Beth- 

43  lehem,  the  village  where  David  was?    So  there  arose 

44  a  division  in  the  multitude  because  of  him.  And 
some  of  them  would  have  taken  him ;  but  no  man 
laid  bands  on  him. 

45  The  officers  therefore  came  to  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees;  and  they  said  unto  them.  Why  did  ye  not 


o  Deut.  18:  15,  18;  ch.  1 :  21 ;  6:  14....J>  ch.  4:  42;  6:  69.... c  ch.  1  :  4fi:  ver.  52 d  Ps.  132:  11;  Jer.  23:5;  Mic.  5:2;  ; 

2:  4....e  1  Sam.  16:  1,4.... /ver.  12;  ch.  9  :  16;  10:  19.... g  ver.  30. 


the  insertion  of  the  word  given  is  perfectly 
consistent  witli  the  meaning  of  Jesus.  It  is  to 
be  observed  that  the  word  Spirit  has  no  arti- 
cle before  it  in  tlie  original,  and  when  it  is 
thus  used  it  generally  marks  an  operation,  or 
gift  of  the  Spirit,  rather  than  the  Spirit  as  a 
person.  (Compare  1:  33;  20:  22;  Matt.  1: 
18,  20;  3:  11;  12:  28;  Luke  1 :  15,  35,  41,  67 ; 
2:  25;  4:  1.) 

40.  Many  of  the  people  therefore.  The 
Kev.  Ver.  presents  a  better  text,  viz.  :  Some 
of  the  mnltitude  therefore.  By  the  order  of 
the  words  in  the  original,  v;e  perceive  that  the 
Evangelist  wished  to  direct  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  persons  referred  to  belonged  to 
the  common  people,  the  multitude,  and  not  to 
the  leaders  of  the  nation,  "the  Jews,"  or 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin.  "  Of  the  tnulti- 
tude,  therefore,  some,^'  is  the  Greek  form,  ac- 
cording to  the  best  editors.  When  they 
heard  this  saying  (lit.,  these  ivords)— just 
spoken— said,  Of  a  truth  this  is  the  Pro- 
phet. (See  Note  on  1  :  21).  That  is,  the  pro- 
phet foretold  by  Moses  (Deut.  is:  15,  is),  and 
distinguished  by  some  of  the  people  from  the 
Messiah. 

41.  Others  said  (or,  were  saying),  This 
is  the  Christ.  Others  said  (or,  loere  say- 
ing), Shall  (the)  Christ  come  out  of  Gali- 
lee? Their  question  implies  a  negative  an- 
swer. The  Christ  does  not  come  from  Galilee, 
and  therefore  this  man  cannot  be  the  Christ. 
They  are  represented  as  .speaking,  not  accord- 
ing to  the  knowledge  of  the  Evangelist — for 
the  Evangelist  knew  that  Jesus  was  born  in 
Bethlehem — but  according  to  common  report; 
for  Jesus  was  generally  supposed  and  reported 
to  be  a  native  of  Galilee,  born  in  Nazareth. 
(See  1:  4'5.)  It  is  scarcely  possible  that  a 
writer  in  th  ?  middle  of  the  second  century 


could  have  been  so  uniformly  true  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case  as  is  this  Evangelist. 

42.  Hath  not  the  Scripture  said.  That 
Christ  cometh  of  the  seed  of  David,  and 
out  of  the  town  of  Bethlehem,  ^vhere 
David  was?  Compare  Rev.  Ver.  To  this 
question  an  affirmative  answer  is  expected; 
and  it  is  therefore  equivalent  to  an  assertion 
that,  according  to  the  Scripture,  the  Messiah 
must  be  from  the  family  and  birthplace  of 
David.  By  a  little  inquiry,  which  surely  the 
miracles  and  teaching  of  .Jesus  called  upon 
them  to  make,  they  might  have  learned  that 
he  was  a  native  of  Bethlehem.  But  they  were 
not  in  a  mood  to  investigate  the  matter  fairly. 

43.  So  there  was  a  division  among  the 
people  [ill  the  multitude)  because  of  him. 
That  is,  he  was  the  occasion  of  a  schism  in  the 
multitude;  it  arose  because  of  him. 

44.  And  some  of  them  would  have 
taken  him  ;  but  no  man  laid  hands  on 
him.  The  class  of  persons  in  tlie  multitude 
that  was  ready  in  heart  to  seize  him  may  be 
the  same  as  tliat  spoken  of  in  ver.  25-27 — 
citizens  of  .Jerusalem  who  were  under  the 
immediate  influence  of  the  hierarchy',  though 
others  may  have  been  in  accord  with  them. 
But  it  was  not  the  will  of  God  that  they 
should  now  do  what  they  wished  to  do.  They 
were  in  some  way  restrained — perhaps  by  the 
manifest  sympathy  of  a  majority  of  the  peo- 
ple with  him. 

43-53.  Report  of  the  Officers  to  the 
Sanhedrin,  and  Discussion  Thereupon. 

45.  Then  came  the  officers  to  the  chief 
priests  and  Pharisees.  (See  Note  on  ver. 
32.)  And  they — to  whom  they  came — said 
unto  them.  Why  have  ye  not  brought 
him  ?  Literally,  Why  did  ye  not  bri7ig  him  ? 
This  calling  of  their  servants  to  account  was 


Ch.  VII.] 


JOHN. 


181 


46  The  officers  answered,  o  Never  man  spake  like  this 
man. 

47  Then  answered  theiu  the  Pharisees,  Are  ye  also 
deceived? 

48  i>  Have  any  gf  the  rulers  or  of  the  Pharisees  be- 
lieved on  him? 

49  But  this  people  who  knoweth  not  the  law  are 
cursed. 

50  Nicodemus  saith  unto  them,  (=  he  that  came  to 
Jesus  by  night,  being  one  of  them,) 

51  <*  Doth  our  law  judge  any  man  before  it  hear  him, 
and  know  what  he  doeth  ? 


46  bring  him?    The  officers  answered,  Never  man  so 

47  spake.     The  Phari.sees  therefore  answered  them,  Are 

48  ye  also  led  astray  ?     Hath  any  of  the  rulers  believed 

49  on  him,  or  of  the  Pharisees?     But  this  multitude 

50  who  knoweth  not  the  law  are  accursed.     Nicodemus 
saith  ULto  them  (he  that  came  to  him  before,  being  one 

51  of  them),  L>oth  our  law  judge  a  man,  except  it  first 


a  Matt.  7:  29 i  ch.  12;  4'2;  Acts  6  :  7;  1  Cor.  1:  20,  26;  2:8 c  ch.  3  :  2 d  Deut.  1 :  17  ;  17  :  8  ;  19:  15. 


natural,  and  it  may  be  assumed  that  their 
servants  were  men  not  very  likely  to  disregard 
tlie  will  of  their  superiors,  or  to  be  balked  in 
their  purpose. 

4G.  The  officers  answered,  Never  man 
spake  like  this  man.  Some  authorities 
have  the  text :  Never  -inan  so  spake.  Tischen- 
dorf  gives  this  reading:  '"'' Never  man  sjoake  as 
this  man  sj^eaks.'^  The  import  of  their  reply 
is  not  affected  by  these  uncertainties  as  to  the 
text.  There  was  something  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  which  astonished  and  awed  these  officers 
of  the  Sanhedrin.  Augustine  is  quoted  by 
Lange  :  Ejus  vita  est  fulgor,  ejtis  verba  toni- 
trua — "his  life  is  lightning;  his  words  thun- 
ders." Jesus  probably  said  much  more  than 
John  has  recorded. 

47.  Then  answered  them  the  Phari- 
sees— who  had  instigated  this  attempt  to  seize 
Jesus,  and  who  were  chagrined  and  angered 
by  its  fiiilure— Are  ye  also  deceived?  The 
emphatic  word  is  ye,  and  the  form  of  the 
question  assumes  that  a  negative  answer  must 
be  given.  "Ye,  the  officers  of  this  learned 
and  sacred  council,  ye  certainly  have  not 
been  deceived?"  There  is  a  touch  of  scorn 
in  the  question,  and  an  assumption  that  all 
who  believed  in  Jesus  were  deceived.  They 
do  not  consider  it  necessary  to  hear  what  Je- 
sus has  said,  even  though  it  has  made  such  an 
impression  on  their  servants. 

48.  Have  any  of  the  rulers  or  of  the 
Pharisees  believed  on  him  ?  The  matter 
is  to  be  settled  by  authority,  and  not  by  look- 
ing at  the  evidence.  If  no  one  of  the  San- 
hedrin has  believed  on  him,  he  must  be  a 
deceiver.  Perhaps  they  did  not  know  that 
one  of  their  own  number,  a  Pharisee,  had 
been  convinced  that  he  was  a  teacher  come 
from  God,  and  had  been  to  see  him  by  night. 
Or  of  the  Pharisees?  For  their  self-con- 
ceit must  come  out.  The  Pharisees  were  the 
orthodox   Jews.      "What   they   believed,   the 


people  might  believe;  but  it  was  absurd  for 
the  people  to  trust  in  one  whom  they  re- 
jected. These  questions  also  presuppose  a 
negative  answer,  and  are  equivalent  to  an 
assertion  that  no  one  of  the  rulers,  or  of  the 
Pharisees,  had  believed  in  Jesus. 

49.  But  this  people  (\\t.,7nidtitude) — this 
throng  in  which  you  have  been — a  contemptu- 
ous expression — who  {that)  knoweth  not  the 
law  are  cursed.  The  expression  that  know- 
eth not  the  law  implies  that,  if  they  knew  the 
law,  they  would  not  believe  in  Christ.  By 
their  conduct  now,  as  always,  thej'  prove 
their  ignorance  of  God's  law;  and  those  who 
do  not  know  the  law  are  accursed.  Bitter,  in- 
deed, was  this  outbreak  of  religious  contempt 
and  wrath.  But  it  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  a  formal  decree  or  proposition  to  exclude 
all  adherents  of  Jesus  from  the  synagogue. 
(Comp.  9:  22.) 

The  language  of  the  Pharisees  was  in  accord 
with  their  attempt  to  get  Jesus  into  their 
hands,  that  they  might  kill  him.  The.y  did 
not  regard  his  guilt  or  innocence  as  an  open 
question.  Thej'  virtuallj'^  pronounced  a  curse 
on  all  the  people  who  adhered  to  him.  But 
there  was  one  of  their  number  who  could  not 
keep  silence  any  longer,  and  would  not  con- 
sent to  the  condemnation  of  Jesus  without  a 
fair  trial,  allowing  him  to  be  heard  for  him- 
self. 

50.  Nicodemus  saith  unto  them — that  is, 
to  the  Pharisees,  but  probably  in  hearing  of  the 
whole  Sanhedrin.  He  that  came  to  Jesus 
by  night  (or,  to  him  before) — recalling  the 
narrative  of  3 :  1-21,  and  showing  that  Christ's 
words  at  that  time  had  not  been  altogether 
fruitless.  The  words  by  night  are  not  so  well 
supported  as  before,  and  the  rest  of  the  clause ; 
but  the  whole  clause  is  wanting  in  a  few  man- 
uscripts. Being  one  of  them.  For  he  was 
a  Pharisee,  as  well  as  a  ruler  of  the  Jews. 

51.  Doth  our  law  judge   any  (lit.,  the) 


182 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


52  They  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  also 
of  Galilee?  Search,  ajid  look:  for  "out  of  Galilee  aris- 
eth  no  prophet. 


52  hear  from  himself  and  know  what  he  doeth?    They 

answered'aud  said  uuto  him,  Art  thou  also  of  Gali- 
lee? Search,  and  i  see  that  out  of  Galilee  arisetb  no 
prophet. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


53  And  every  man  went  unto  his  owji  house. 

JESUS  went  unto  the  mount  of  Olives. 
2  And  early  in  the  mdruing  he  came  again  into  the 
temple  and  all  "the  people  came  unto  him ;  and  he  sat 
down,  and  taught  them. 


53     *  [And  they  went  every  man  unto  his  own  house: 

1  but  Jesus  went  uuto  the   mount  of  Olives.     And 

2  early  in  the  morning  he  came  again  into  the  temple, 
and  all  the  people  came  uuto  him ;  and  he  sat  down. 


a  Isa.  9:1,2     Matt.  4 :  15 ;  cb.  1 :  46  ; 


T.  41. 1  Or.  see  :  for  out  of  Galilee,  etc 2  Most  of  the  ancient  authorities  omit  John  T  :  53-8 : 

11.    Those  which  contaiu  it  vary  much  from  each  other. 


man — who  in  any  particular  instance  is  ac- 
cused— before,  etc.— (lit.,  except  it  first  hear 
from  him,  and  know  what  he  doeth  ?)  The 
question  assumes  that  the  answer  must  be 
negative ;  and,  in  favor  of  such  an  answer, 
appeal  is  made  to  Deut.  1:  16;  19:  15-19. 
Modern  jurisprudence  is  recognizing  more 
and  more  the  justice  of  allowing  an  accused 
person  to  testify  in  regard  to  himself.  Of 
course,  the  fact  will  not  be  overlooked  that  he 
is  an  interested  witness.  In  respect  to  the 
claims  of  a  religious  teacher,  there  is  double 
reason  for  letting  him  speak  for  himself, 
namely,  because  religious  prejudice  is  often 
strong,  and  because  it  is  easy  to  misrepresent 
another's  teaching. 

52.  Art  thou  also  of  (or, /row)  Galilee? 
By  this  question  they  assume  (1)  that  no  one 
but  a  native  of  Galilee  could  be  expected  to 
suggest  that  Jesus  ought  even  to  be  heard  in 
his  own  defence;  and  (2)  that  Nicodemus  was 
not  from  Galilee,  and  therefore  had  spoken 
very  absurdly,  unaccountabh\  Search,  and 
look  (see) :  for  out  of  Galilee  ariseth  no 
prophet.  And  if  no  prophet  ariseth  out  of 
Galilee,  Jesus  cannot  be  even  a  prophet;  much 
less  can  he  be  the  Messiah.  It  has  been 
thought  incredible  that  the  Sanhedrists  should 
have  made  this  statement.  But  it  is  not  un- 
common for  persons  under  the  influence  of 
passion  to  pass  beyond  the  truth.  A  few  only 
of  the  prophets,  two  or  three,  at  most,  as  Jo- 
nah, Hosea,  Nahum,  had  sprung  from  Galilee; 
and  these  were  either  forgotten  or  overlooked 
in  their  eagerness  to  make  a  case  against  Jesus. 

53.  This  verse,  together  with  the  first  eleven 
verses  of  chapter  8,  must  be  rejected,  as  form- 
ing no  part  of  the  original  text.  But  the 
grounds  of  this  rejection  deserve  to  be  stated 
at  some  length.' 


Ch.  8.  The  last  verse  of  chapter  7  belongs 
with  the  first  eleven  verses  of  chapter  8,  and 
this  whole  paragraph,  containing  the  narrative 
of  the  Saviour's  interview  with  the  adultei'ess 
and  her  accusers  appears,  as  we  have  seen,  to 
have  formed  no  part  of  the  Gospel  as  it  was 
first  written  by  John.  Yet  the  narrative  bears 
every  mark  of  truthfulness.  It  is  evidently 
no  myth,  but  the  simple  story  of  a  real  occur- 
rence. "In  any  case,"  says  Lange,  "it  is  an 
apostolic  relic."  And  Meyer  calls  it  "a  piece 
of  writing  from  the  apostolic  age,"  and  "an 
ancient  relic  of  evangelical  history." 

7:  53.  And  every  man  went  unto  his 
own  house.  More  strictly :  And  they  went 
every  man  unto  his  own  house.  If  this  verse 
stands  in  its  proper  place,  and  the  following 
narrative  describes  events  which  belong  to 
this  point  of  time  in  the  Saviour's  ministry, 
the  expression  every  man  refers  naturally  to 
the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin.  These  had 
failed  in  their  attempt  to  seize  Jesus,  and  had 
learned  that  one  of  their  number  was  not  his 
foe.  It  was  time  for  them  to  separate;  and  it 
may  be  presumed  that  many  of  them  repaired 
to  their  homes  in  bitterness  of  soul,  disap- 
pointed at  their  failure,  angry  with  their 
officers,  disturbed  by  the  words  of  Nicodemus, 
and  eager  to  devise  some  new  plot  by  which 
they  might  ensnare  the  prophet  of  Galilee. 

8 :  1.  Jesus  went  unto  the  Mount  of 
Olives.  Whether  to  the  house  of  Mary  and 
Martha  and  Lazarus,  no  one  can  say.  Six 
months  later  he  was  accustomed  to  spend  the 
night  in  Bethany,  or  some  other  place  on  the 
Mount  of  Olives,  while  he  passed  the  day  in 
Jerusalem.    (Luke 21:37.) 

2.  And  early  in  the  morning  he  came 
again  into  the  temple.  For  he  was  intent 
upon  his  ministry,  and  sure  that  the  hour  was 


i[This  remarkable  passage  can  no  longer  be  consid-    fail  to  be  reckoned  a  true  story  of  Jesus.    It  is  wanting 
ered  a  part  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  yet  can  hardly  iinNABCLTXA,  and  at  least  seventy  cursives,  and 


Ch.  VIIL] 


JOHN. 


183 


3  And  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  brought  unto  him  a  I 
woman  takeu  iu  adultery ;  and  when  they  liad  set  her 
in  the  midst,  I 


3  and  taught  them.    And  the  scribes  and  the  Phari- 
sees bring  a  woman  taken  iu  adultery  ;  and  having 


not  yet  cotne  for  him  to  be  delivered  into  the 
hands  of  his  enemies.     And  all  the  people 

came  (or,  were  coming)  unto  him.  Observe 
the  imperfect  tense  of  the  verb,  denoting  con- 
tinued action.  The  rest  of  this  verse :  And 
he  sat  down,  and  taught  them,  is  not  found 
in  the  Cambridge  manuscript,  the  oldest  au- 
thority for  this  section  (Watkins),  and  should 
not  be  considered  a  part  of  the  text,  though  it 
is  doubtless  true  that  Jesus  was  teaching  the 
people  as  they  resorted  to  him.  The  Greek 
word  (opSpou),  here  used  to  signify  early  in 


numerous  Evangelistaiia ;  and  is  marked  as  of  doubtful 
genuineness  (with  asterisks,  or  obeli)  in  many  other 
manuscripts.  Also  wanting  in  Old  Syriac,  Peshito,  and 
Harklean,  in  some  copies  of  the  Old  Latin,  in  Mem- 
phitic  (best  codices),  Thebaic,  Armenian,  and  Gothic. 
Origen,  Chrysostom,  Cyril,  and  several  other  Greek 
Fathers,  iu  commentaries  on  John,  pass  at  once  from 
7:  52  to  8:  12,  without  allusion  to  anything  be*ween. 
Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  in  copious  discussions  of  the 
question  whether  an  adulterous  person  could  be  restored 
to  fellowship,  make  no  mention  of  this  story.  No  Greek 
manuscript  earlier  than  the  eighth  century  contains 
the  passage  except  d,  which  has  very  many  unwarranted 
additions  to  the  text.  ■  No  Greek  patristic  writing  ear- 
lier than  the  tenth  century,  except  the  so-called  "Apos- 
tolical Constitutions,"  refers  to  such  a  passage.  Of 
eight  early  Greek  commentators  on  John  whose  works 
remain,  only  Euthymius  (twelfth  century)  mentions  the 
passage,  and  he  says  it  is  wanting,  or  marked  with  an 
obelisk  in  the  accurate  copies,  and  must  be  an  interpola- 
tion. Tatian's  "Diatessaron  "  seems  not  to  have  included 
it,  to  judge  from  the  absence  of  reference  to  it  in  the 
recently  found  commentary  of  Ephrem  (Zahn,  p.  190). 
No  early  version  has  it  but  the  ^'Ethiopic,  the  Jerusalem 
Syriac  lesson  book,  and  the  Latin  Vulgate,  with  many 
copies  of  the  Old  Latin.  Thus  the  early  documentary 
authority  for  the  passage  is  almost  entirely  Latin,  in- 
cluding Ambrose,  Jerome,  and  Augustine,  with  d  and 
the  -Ethiopic.  It  is  a  familiar  fact  that  d,  Latin  ver- 
sions and  Fathers,  and  often  the  ..Ethiopic,  are  con- 
stantly giving  "Western"  alterations  and  interpola- 
tions. It  must  be  added  that  the  documents  containing 
this  pa-ssage  exhibit  a  great  number  of  variations  in- 
detail,  which  is  always  a  suspicious  circumstance. 

No  adequate  reason  has  been  suggested  for  the  omis- 
sion of  this  passage,  if  originally  present.  Augustine, 
in  using  the  passage  as  a  proof-text  in  an  argument, 
says  that  some  have  removed  it  from  their  copies,  fear- 
ing, he  supposes, that  it  may  give  theirwives  impunity. 
But  Hort  has  pointed  out  that  there  is  no  parallel  case  of 
a  wide-spread  omission  of  an  extended  passage,  because  I 
unacceptable;  that  while  Montanists  and  Novatians  I 
might  have  found  this  story  astumbling-block,  the  early  ' 


the  morning,  is  not  the  one  used  elsewhere 
by  John. 

3.  And  the  scribes  and  Pharisees 
brought  (rather,  bring)  unto  him  a  woman 
taken  in  adultery,  and  Avhenthey  had  set 
her  in  the  midst,  etc.  It  is  natural  to  con- 
jecture that  the  woman  dwelt  in  Jerusalem, 
and  that  her  sin  was  committed  there;  but 
nothing  can  be  certainly  known  on  these 
points.  Nor  is  the  place  of  her  residence  or  of 
her  sin  of  the  slightest  consequence.  Sin  is 
the  same  everywhere.  But  those  who  brought 

Christians  in  general  would  not  at  all ;  and  that,  if  any- 
where thus  objected  to,  it  would  have  been  in  Latin 
Christendom,  while  yet  the  three  great  Latin  Fathers 
are  its  chief  defenders.  Another  theory,  that  it  was 
omitted  from  lesson  books,  and  then  from  copies  of  the 
Gospel,  quite  fails  to  establish  itself.  (See  Hort.)  On 
the  other  hand,  we  can  easily  imagine  how  so  striking 
and  beautiful  a  story  may  have  been  placed  on  the  mar- 
gin of  the  Gospel,  perhaps  (Ewald,  Lightfoot)  to  illus- 
trate our  Lord's  statement  (8:  15):  "  I  judge  no  man"; 
and  that  then  it  crept  into  the  text  of  many  copies, 
being  usually  inserted  after  7  :  52,  but  in  the  cursive 
225  after  7:  36.  So  in  the  lost  uncial,  represented  by 
the  kindred  cursives  1.3,  69,  124,  .346,  it  is  given  at  the 
end  of  Luke,  ch.  21,  where  21 :  37  corresponds  to  the  be- 
ginning of  the  slory;  and  in  about  a  dozen  cursives 
and  some  codices  of  the  Armenian  it  is  transferred  to 
the  end  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

The  story  is  eminently  characteristic  of  Jesus,  and  is 
not  at  all  likely  to  have  been  invented  by  any  of  the 
early  Christians ;  it  is,  therefore,  in  all  probability,  an 
early  account  of  a  real  occurrence.  The  style  is  so  far 
unlike  that  of  John  (though  some  critics  have  over- 
stated and  misstated  the  differenees),  that  we  cannot 
suppose  it  to  have  come  from  him,  and  the  narrator 
cannot  be  known.  Eusobius  ("  History,"  3,  39)  tells  of 
Papias,  who  wrote,  about  a.  d.  130,  a  work  entitled 
"Expositions  of  the  Lord's  Discourses"  (or.  History),  in 
which  he  proposed  (as  Eusebius  quotes  from  his  Pre- 
face) to  put  with  the  Expositions  matters  derived  by  him 
from  persons  who  had  conversed  with  the  apostles, 
thereby  confirming  his  explanations.  After  quoting 
from  this  work  certain  stories  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Gos- 
pels of  Mark  and  Matthew,  Eusebius  says  that  Papias 
"  has  also  put  forth  another  story,  concerning  a  woman 
accused  before  the  Lord  touching  many  sins,  which  is 
contained  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews." 
From  the  collection  of  Papias,  or  from  the  often  men- 
tioned Apocryphal  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
story  very  likely  came  to  the  margin  of  John  and  of 
Luke.  Various  other  sayings  ascribed  to  Jesus  bv  n, 
or  by  early  Fathers,  are  also,  probably  real  sayings  of 
his,  though  not  a  part  of  the  Scriptures. — B.] 


184 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


4  They  say  unto  hiiu,  Master,  this  woman  was  taken 
in  adultery,  iu  the  very  act. 

5  «  Now  Moses  iu  the  law  commanded  us,  that  such 
should  be  stoned:  but  what  sayest  thou? 

6  This  they  said,  tempting  him,  that  they  might  have 
to  accuse  him.  But  Jesus  stooped  down,  and  with  hu 
finger  wrote  on  the  ground,  as  though  he  heard  them  not. 

7  So  when  they  continued  asking  him,  he  lifted  up 
himself,  and  said  unto  them,  '  He  that  is  without  sin 
among  you,  let  him  first  cast  a  stone  at  her. 


4  set  her  in  the  midst,  they  say  unto  him,  i  Master, 
this  woman  hath  been  taken  in  adultery,  in  the  very 

5  act.    Now  in  the  law  Moses  commanded  us  to  stone 

6  such:  what  then  sayest  thou  of  her?  And  this  they 
said,  trying  him,  that  they  might  have  whereof  to 
accuse  him.     But  Jesus  stooped  down,  and  with  liis 

7  finger  wrote  on  the  ground.  But  when  they  con- 
tinued asking  him,  he  lifted  up  himself,  and  said 
unto  them.  He  that  is  without  sin  among  you,  let 


a  Lev.  20 :  10  ;  Deal.  22  :  22 4  Deut.  17:7;  Rom.  2  :  1.— 1  Or,  Teaclier. 


her  to  Jesus  had,  no  doubt,  some  kind  of  au- 
thority in  the  case.  They  are  called  scribes 
and  Pharisees — an  expression  frequently 
occurring  in  the  first  three  Gospels,  but  no- 
where else  in  the  Fourth.  Instead  of  it,  John 
employs  the  expression  "the  Jews,"  meaning 
by  it  the  religious  leaders  of  the  people,  espe- 
cially members  of  the  Sanhedrin.  Instead  of 
the  words  taken  in  adultery,  the  Cambridge 
manuscript  reads  "taken  in  sin."  It  also 
omits  "unto  him"  in  the  first  clause,  reading 
thus :  And  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  bring  a 
woman  taken  in  sin. 

4.  Master,  this  woman  Avas  taken  in 
adultery,  in  the  very  act.  Meyer  remarks 
that  "the  adulterer,  who  was  likewise  guilty 
of  death  (Lev.  20:  lO;  Deut.  22: 24)  may  have  escaped.'' 

5.  Now,  Moses  in  the  law  commanded 
us,  that  such  should  be  stoned.  If  the  pas- 
sage of  the  law  referred  to  is  Deut.  22:  23,  24, 
and  if  the  law  was  strictly  applicable  to  the 
case  in  hand,  the  woman  brought  before  Jesus 
was  betrothed,  but  not  married.  Yet  her  sin 
was  reckoned  as  great  as  if  she  were  already 
married.  Butif  Lev.  20: 10  be  compared  with 
Ex.  31 :  14  and  35:  2,  as  inter;ireted  by  Num. 
15:  32-35,  it  will  seem  ver^-  probable  that 
stoning  was  understood  to  be  the  way  in  which 
adulterers  and  adulteresses  were  to  be  punished 
with  death.  But  what  sayest  thou  ?  Bet- 
ter: What  sayest  thou?  This  question  was 
doubtless  asked  with  a  bearing  and'  tone  of 
affected  candor  and  respect;  but  the  hearts 
of  the  Scribes  and  Phari-sees  who  proposed 
it  were  full  of  enmity  to  Jesus. 

6.  This  they  said,  tempting  him,  that 
they  might  have  to  accuse  him.  Their 
object  was  to  lead  him  into  a  snare,  as  when 
he  was  asked  whether  it  was  lawful  to  pay 
tribute  to  Cesar,  or  not.  For  if,  in  the  present 
case,  he  had  answered:  "Let  her  be  stoned, 
according  to  the  Mosaic  law,"  it  would  have 
been  easy  to  accuse  him  to  Pilate  as  teaching 
the  Jews  to  do  what  was  contrary  to  Roman 


law;  for  Roman  law  did  not  allow  subject 
peoples  to  inflict  the  punishment  of  death  (see 
18 :  31),  nor  did  it  punish  with  death  the  crime 
committed  by  this  woman.  Moreover,  it  is 
probable  that  many  of  the  people  who  loved 
Jesus  for  his  gentleness  and  sympathy  would 
have  been  offended  by  this  answer;  for  the 
law  of  Moses  had  ceased  to  be  executed  upon 
adulterers  hy  the  Jews.  But  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  had  said,  "Let  her  not  be  stoned," 
they  would  probably  have  accused  him  of 
attempting  to  make  void  their  law,  and  sub- 
vert their  religion,  thus  increasing  the  hostility 
of  a  certain  part  of  the  Jews  to  himself.  The 
snare  was  skillfully  laid,  and  it  needed  super- 
human wisdom  in  Jesus  to  escape  it.  Yet  he 
escaped  without  apparent  diflSculty.  But 
Jesus  stooped  down  and  with  his  finger 
wrote  (or,  v}ns  writing)  on  the  ground. 
Observe  the  descriptive  imperfect.  The  writer 
depicts  the  scene  as  if  he  had  been  an  eye- 
witness. But  what  did  this  action  of  Jesus 
signify?  According  to  the  best  light  now 
accessible,  it  seems  to  have  been  a  silent  but 
intelligible  intimation  that  he  would  think 
of  something  else  rather  than  their  question. 
Hence  that,  for  some  reason,  their  question 
was  unworthy  of  attention  or  response.  What 
he  wrote  was,  therefore,  of  no  consequence ;  it 
was  the  stooping  down  and  writing  that  was  a 
silent  reproof  to  his  questioners,  giving  them 
time  to  reflect  and  come  to  a  better  mind. 

7.  So  (or,  but)  when  they  continued 
asking  him — for  they  were  resolved  to  ac- 
complish their  purpose^he  lifted  up  him« 
self  and  said  unto  them  :  He  that  is 
Avithout  sin  among  you,  let  him  first  cast 
a  stone  at  (or,  upon)  her.  These  words  were 
so  uttered — with  such  holy  insight  and  au- 
thority— that  they  could  not  be  parried  or 
resisted.  They  did  not  condemn  the  Mosaic 
law;  they  rather  authorized  obedience  to  it; 
but  on  such  terms  as  awakened  conscience  and 
prevented  any  violation  of  Roman  law.     He 


Ch.  VIIL] 


JOHN. 


185 


8  And  again  he  stooped  down,  and  wrote  on  the 
ground. 

9  And  they  which  hoard  //,  "  being  convicted  by  Ihe.lr 
own  conscience,  went  out  one  by  one,  beginning  at  the 
eldest,  even  unto  tlie  last:  and  Jesus  was  left  alone,  and 
the  woman  standing  in  the  midst. 

10  When  Jesus  had  lifted  up  himself,  and  saw  none 
but  the  woman,  he  said  unto  her,  Woman,  where  are 
those  thine  accusers?  hath  no  man  condemned  thee? 
.  11  She  said,  No  man,  Lord.  And  Jesus  said  unto  her, 
*  Neither  do  1  condemn  thee:  go,  and  <■'  sin  no  more. 

12  Then  spake  Jesus  again  unto  them,  saying,  "^I  am 
the  light  of  the  world:  he  that  followeth  me  shall  not 
walk  in  darkness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of  life. 


8  him  first  east  a  stone  at  her.     And  again  he  stooped 

9  down,  and  willi  his  linger  wrote  on  the  ground.  And 
they,  when  they  beam  it,  went  out  one  by  one,  l)e- 
ginniug  from  the  eldest,  ecen  unto  the  last:  and  Je- 
sus was  left  alone,  and  the  woman,  where  she  was, 

10  in  the  midst.  And  Jesus  lifted  up  himself,  and  said 
unto  her.  Woman,  where  are  they  ?  did  no  man  con- 

11  demn  thee?  And  she  said,  No  man,  Lord.  And 
Jesus  said.  Neither  do  I  condemn  thee:  go  thy  way; 
from  henceforth  sin  no  more.] 

12  Again  therefore  Jesus  spake  unto  them,  saying, 
I  am  the  light  of  the  world :  he  that  followeth  uie shall 

.   not  walk  in  the  darkness,  but  shall  have  the  light 


;  Rom.  2:  22 6  Luke  9  :  56  ;  12  ;  14;  oh.  .S  :  17 c  ch.  5  :  14. ..  .d  ch.  1 :  4,  5,  9  ;  3  :  19-;  9  :  5  ;  12  :  35,  36,  46. 


wrought  in  the  domain  of  spirit,  and  his  only 
weapon  was  truth.  His  foes  were  discomfited, 
the  spirituality  of  tlie  divine  law  was  revealed, 
and  mercy  was  shown  to  the  lost  "The  skill  of 
this  reply  consists  in  disarming  the  extempo- 
rized judges  of  this  woman,  without  showing 
the  least  disrespect  to  the  ordinance  of  Moses. 
The  code  remains,  only  there  is  no  one  to  exe- 
cute it." — Godet.  The  expression,  without 
sin,  may  have  been  used  by  Jesus  in  an  abso- 
lute sense;  but  it  is  perhaps  more  natural  to 
suppose  a  reference  to  unchastity,  though  not 
simply  to  the  outward  act.  (See  Matt.  5:  28.) 
Desire  is  sin;  and  the  Saviour  may  have 
uttered  his  words  with  such  a  look  and  tone 
as  led  his  foes  to  feel  that  he  was  reading  the 
secrets  of  their  spiritual  history.  At  any  rate, 
the  eifectof  his  brief  response  was  remarkable. 

8.  And  again  he  stooped  down  and 
Avrote  {with  his  finger)  on  the  ground. 
Intimating  by  this  act  that  he  had  nothing 
further  to  say,  and  had  no  wish  to  hear  more 
from  them.  In  so  far  as  they  were  concerned 
the  case  was  finished. 

9.  And  they  which  heard  it,  etc.  They, 
when  they  heard,  were  convicted  by  their  con- 
science, and  went  out  one  by  one,  beginning 
from  the  older  unto  the  last ;  and  Jesus  was 
left  alone,  a7id  the  woman  standing  in  the 
midst.  This  is  a  literal  rendering  of  the  ordi- 
nary text ;  and  it  makes  a  very  graphic  and 
life-like  picture.  The  hearing  is  represented 
as  a  completed  act,  but  the  being  convicted 
by  conscience  as  a  process  going  on  in  the 
minds  of  the  scribes  and  Phari-sees.  In  the 
older  persons  it  was  more  rapid.  They  saw 
the  position  in  which  they  were  placed,  the 
unanswerable  wisdom  of  Clirist's  response, 
the  utter  failure  of  their  .scheme,  and  one  by 
one  they  silently  withdrew.  The  younger 
men  soon  followed,  and  the  woman,  filled  with 
shame  and  sorrow,   was  left  alone  with  the 


Holy  One,  in  tlie  very  place  where  she  had 
been  put  by  her  accusers. 

10.  When  Jesus  had  lifted  up,  himself 
and  saw  none  but  the  Avoman,  he  said 
unto  her.  Woman,  where  are  those  thine 
accusers?  hath  no  man  condemned  thee? 
The  Cambridge  mtinuscript  has  only  the  fol- 
lowing: '''' And  when  Jesus  had  lifted  himself 
up,  he  said  unto  the  woman.  Where  are  they  9 
did  no  one  condemn  thee  ?  "  The  shorter  form 
implies  all  that  is  expressed  in  the  longer 
form,  and  is  perhaps  more  likely  to  be  original. 

11.  And  she  said.  No  man,  Lord.  And 
Jesus  said  unto  her.  Neither  do  I  condemn 
thee  ;  go  and  sin  no  more.  The  bearing  of 
the  woman,  so  ftir  as  it  can  be  inferred  from 
the  narrative,  and  especially  from  the  words  of 
Jesus,  render  it  probable  that  she  was  truly 
penitent.  If  so,  the  words,  neither  do  I 
condemn  thee,  imply  forgiveness,  and,  taken 
with  the  words  that  follow,  justify  the  saying 
of  Augustine  that  Jesus  "forgives  the  sinner, 
but  condemns  the  sin."  Yet  Godet' s  com- 
ment is  worthy  of  consideration:  "We  need 
not  confound  the  words  of  Jesus  to  this  woman 
with  a  positive  declaration  of  forgiveness,  like 
that  of  Luke  7 :  48,  50.  The  woman  had  not 
come  to  Jesus  by  an  impulse  of  faith,  as  the 
woman  who  was  a  sinner,  but  penitent,  came. 
Jesus  simply  grants  her  time  to  repent  and 
believe." 

12-19.  Subsequent  Colloquy  with  the 
Pharisees. 

12.  Then  (or,  therefore)  spake  Jesus 
again  unto  them.  If,  as  we  suppose,  the 
paragraph  relating  to  the  adulteress  did  not 
belong  to  the  original  text,  this  verse  followed 
7:  52;  but  in  all  probability  some  length  of 
time,  a  day  perhaps,  passed  between  the  dia- 
logue ending  with  that  verse,  and  the  dialogue 
beginning  here.  The  pronoun  them  must 
be  supposed  to  mean  the  people  generally  at 


186 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


13  The  Pharisees  therefore  said  unto  him,  "Thou 
bearest  record  of  thyself;  thy  record  is  not  true. 

14  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Though  I  bear 
record  of  myself,  yH  my  record  is  true;  for  I  linow 
whence  I  came,  and  whither  I  go;  but  *  ye  cannot  tell 
whence  I  come,  and  whither  I  go. 


13  of  life.  The  Pharisees  said  unto  him.  Thou  bearest 
witness  of  thyself;  therefore  thy  witness  is  not  true. 

14  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Even  if  I  bear 
witness  of  myself,  my  witness  is  true;  for  I  know 
whence  I  came,  and  whither  I  go  ;  but  ye  know  not 


och.  5:  31.... 6  Seech.  7:28j  9:29. 


the  feast.  The  conjunction  then  (or,  there- 
fore) points  to  something  not  mentioned, 
which  was  the  occasion  of  the  saying  of  Jesus 
preserved  in  this  verse.  "Whatever  that  occa- 
sion may  have  been,  a  knowledge  of  it  would 
not  probably  add  anything  to  the  force  of 
Christ's  language  as  addressed  to  the  readers 
of  the  Gospel.  I  am  the  light  of  the  world. 
This  may  have  been  the  basis  in  John's  thought 
for  his  declaration  in  the  prologue,  (i:*) 
Light  is  the  means  of  seeing,  and  seeing  is 
knowing.  Jesus  here  claims  to  be  the  one 
medium  of  divine  knowledge — the  original 
light,  which  is  in  fact  the  source  of  all  other 
light  and  life  wliich  reveal  God.  By  the 
worUI  he  evidently  means  "the  world  of 
mankind,"  as  naturally  in  darkness  by  reason 
of  sin.  (See  Maclaren,  "  Weekday  Evening 
Addresses,"  for  an  interesting  discourse  on 
this  saying  of  Christ).  He  that  followeth 
me — as  a  disciple  follows  his  teacher  and 
guide;  he  who  follows  mo  habitually,  so  that 
this  following  is  characteristic  of  him — shall 
not  walk  in  darkness  (or,  in  the  darkness). 
The  double  negative  (ov  nM)  may  be  regarded 
as  emphatic,  and  might  be  represented  by  the 
phrase  by  no  means,  which  is  slightly  stronger 
than  the  simple  not.  Neither  the  reality  (ou) 
nor  the  possibility  (»*>))  of  walking  in  darkness 
is  to  be  feared.  The  darkness  referred  to  is 
occasioned  by  sin,  and  consists  in  a  want  of 
divine  knowledge,  that  is,  of  a  true  knowledge 
of  God.  But  shall  have  the  light  of  (f/te) 
life.  The  light  which  has  its  source  in  the  tru© 
life  (i:*),  that  knowledge  of  God  through 
Christ,  which  is  the  highest  blessedness  of  man. 
This  is  one  of  the  clearest  and  most  solemn 
sayings  of  Jesus.  No  mere  man,  who  was  not 
thoroughly  insane  or  inexpressibly  arrogant, 
could  have  uttered  these  words.  Either  Jesus 
was  the  Son  of  God  and  truly  divine,  or  the 
Jews  were  right  in  rejecting  his  doctrine  and 
authority.  If  he  was  the  light  of  the  world, 
he  was  "in  the  beginning  with  God,"  and 
"was  God";  if  he  was  not  the  light  of  the 
world,  he  deserved  punishinent  as  a  blas- 
phemer, or  pity  as  a  man  bereft  of  reason.  No 


middle  ground  is  tenable.  And  to  one  who  con- 
siders the  calmness,  the  moral  purity,  the  deep 
wisdom,  the  mighty  works,  and  the  inri^erish- 
able  influence  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  hypothesis 
of  mental  or  religious  insanity  is  absurd.  He 
was  therefore  all  that  his  most  devout  fol- 
lowers have  believed — the  God-man  and  only 
meditator  between  God  and  man. 

13.  The  Pharisees  therefore  said  unto 
him  :  Thou  bearest  record  of  thyself; 
thy  record  is  not  true.  That  is  to  say:  It 
was  long  a  principle  of  law  that  no  one  could 
be  allowed  to  testify  in  his  own  behalf;  for  as 
he  was  a  party  interested,  his  testimony  could 
not,  therefore,  be  accepted  as  true.  Probably 
they  did  not  intend  to  say  more  than  this.  But 
the  legal  practice  of  refusing  tohear  any  man's 
testimony  respecting  himself,  is  a  human  and 
clumsy  expedient  to  guard  against  error  by 
rejecting  one  source  of  truth.  For,  in  many 
cases,  tlie  testimony  of  a  person  concerning 
himself  is  the  only  evidence  possible,  while  in 
many  other  cases  such  testimony  is  entitled  to 
more  confidence  than  that  of  witnesses  who 
are  supposed  to  be  disinterested.  In  the  last 
analysis  everything  depends  upon  the  knowl- 
edge and  character  of  the  witness. 

14.  Though  (or,  even  if)  I  bear  record 
(or,  witness)  of  (or,  concerning)  myself — as 
he  had  just  done,  and  as  he  was  about  to  do 
with  great  positiveness — my  record  (or,  wit- 
ness) is  true.  That  is  to  say:  Truthful,  in 
harmon\'  with  fact,  and  worthy  of  all  confi- 
dence. For  I  know  whence  I  came  and 
whither  I  go  ;  but  ye  cannot  tell  (lit., 
know  not)  whence  I  come,  and  w^hither  I 
go.  Thus  Jesus  overrules  the  merely  formal 
or  technical  objection  to  his  testimony  by  de- 
liberately claiming  a  knowledge  which  the 
Pharisees  did  not  possess.  They  knew  some- 
thing indeed  of  his  earthly  parentage  ('=28), 
and  home  in  Nazareth  ;  but  of  his  heavenly 
parentage  and  "glory  with  the  Father  before 
the  world  was"  (17:5)'  they  were  entirely 
ignorant.  Of  the  latter,  he  only,  of  all  the 
sons  of  men,  had  any  direct  knowledge;  and 
such  were   his    character  (7:i6  8q.)  and  con- 


Ch.  VIII.] 


JOHN. 


187 


15  «  Ye  judge  after  the  flesh ;  '  I  judge  no  man. 

16  And  yet  if  I  judge,  my  judgujeiit  is  true :  for  « I  am 
not  alone,  but  I  and  tlie  Father  that  sent  uie. 

17  <i  It  is  also  written  in  your  law,  that  the  testimony 
of  two  men  is  true. 


15  whence  I  come,  or  whither  I  go.    Ye  judge  after  the 

16  flesh  ;  I  judge  no  man.      Yea  and  if  I  judge,  my 
judgment  is  true;  for  I  am  not  alone,  but  I  and  the 

17  Father  that  sent  me.    Yea  and  in  your  law  it  is  writ- 


anh.  7:  24 h  ch.  3:  17;  12  :  47  :  18 :  36 c  ver.  29;  ch.  16:  32 d  Deut.  17:  6;  19:  15;  Matt.  18:  16;  2  Cor.  13:  1 ;  Heb.  10: 


iiection  with  the  Father  (see  ver.  16-18  below), 
tliat  his  testimony  ought  to  be  received  as 
perfect  and  conclusive.  The  reader  will  ob- 
serve that  Jesus  says:  I  knoAV  whence  I 
came,  using  the  past  tense  because  he  had  in 
mind  his  incarnation  and  yQ  cannot  tell,  etc. 
(or,  know  not),  using  tlie  present  tense  come 
because  he  had  in  mind  his  present  and  fre- 
quent manifestation  of  himself  to  them  as  the 
Messiah.  They  could  not  be  expected  to 
know  whence  he  came  at  his  birth ;  but  they 
might  have  known  that  his  coming  to  them, 
in  his  public  ministry,  was  with  divine  power 
and  wisdom,  indicative  of  a  heavenly  origin. 
15.  Ye  judge  after  the  flesh.  Ye  is  em- 
phatic in  contrast  with  I  of  the  next  clause. 
To  judge,  as  here  used,  is  to  condemn;  and 
this  is  a  very  frequent  use  of  the  word  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  To  condemn  after  the  flesh 
is  to  make  the  outward  appearance,  the  visible 
form  and  state,  of  any  person,  the  reason  for 
an  unfavorable  decision  respecting  him.  The 
Pharisees  were  doing  precisely  this.  And 
they  were  acting  as  if  to  judge  in  such  a  man- 
ner were  their  business,  their  office,  and  the 
object  of  their  lives.  They  saw  in  Jesus  a 
mere  man,  of  humble  origin  and  no  visible 
authority,  and  therefore  they  refused  to  be- 
lieve that  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  the  Bread  of 
Life,  or  the  Light  of  the  world.  I  judge  no 
man.  This  statement  is  not  to  be  qualified  by 
adding  the  words,  "after  the  flesh,"  for  such 
an  addition  cannot  be  made  to  the  next  clause. 
The  denial  of  Jesus  should  ratberbe  traced  to 
his  consciousness  of  having  come  into  the 
world,  not  to  condemn,  but  to  save.  (See  12: 
47.)  "My  true  business  is  not  to  judge,  but 
to  save;  and  if,  by  way  of  exception,  I  judge, 
it  is  only  those  who  will  not  suff'er  themselves 
to  be  saved." — Meyer.  But  Godet  insists  that 
the  expression  no  one  cannot  be  limited  by 
what  follows.  It  is  better,  he  saj'S,  to  under- 
stand the  emphatic  pronoun  I,  as  equivalent 
io  I  alone,  or  "apart  from  the  Father,"  and 
meaning  the  same  as  5:  30:  "I  can  of  mine 
own  self  do  nothing,"  etc.  But  the  interpre- 
tation first  given  is  preferable  to  this. 


16.  And  yet  (or,  even)  if  I  judge,  my 
judgment  is  true.  This  language  concedes 
that,  though  judging  is  not  the  object  of  his 
mission  to  mankind,  he  does,  nevertheless,  at 
times,  judge  those  with  whom  he  meets,  and, 
indeed,  is  doing  this  now;  yet  it  affirms  that 
whenever  he  judges,  his  judgment  is  perfect. 
It  is  not  "after  the  flesh,"  or  "according  to 
appearance,"  but  according  to  truth  and  right- 
eousness—a divine  judgment.  This  inter- 
pretation supposes  that  John  wrote  a  Greek 
word  {aKriiivq),  whicli  means  true,  as  satisfying 
our  conception  of  what  judgment  ought  to  be, 
and  not  the  word  (oAr,?^?),  which  means  simply 
truthful,  or  veracious.  Both  of  these  words, 
owing  to  the  poverty  of  our  language,  must  be 
translated  by  the  term  true.  Lach.,  Tisch., 
Treg.,  West,  and  Hort  unite  in  the  former 
Greek  adjective  for  this  sentence.  For  I  am 
not  alone,  but  I  and  the  Father  that  sent 
me.  Therefore,  my  judgment  is  not  merely 
human,  as  you  suppose,  but  also  divine:  it  is 
God's  judgment;  for  such  is  my  relation  to 
the  Father  that  whatever  I  say,  he  says,  and 
whatever  I  do,  he  does.  In  judging  we  are 
one. 

17.  It  is  also  Avritten  in  your  laAV  (or, 
and  even  in  your  law  it  is  written).  Compare 
10:  34;  15:  25.  Why  does  Jesus  say  your 
law?  Perhaps  because  the  Pharisess  were 
extreme  legalists,  joined  with  the  circum- 
stance that  they  had  virtually  appealed  to  the 
law  as  a  reason  for  rejecting  his  testimony. 
Yet  he  may  mean  to  suggest  that  he  liimself 
is  superior  to  the  technical  rules  of  the  Mosaic 
code,  being  truly  united  with  God.  That 
the  testimony  of  two  men  is  true  (Deut.n: 
6;  19: 15).  This  is  a  free,  rather  than  a  literal 
quotation,  giving  the  substance,  rather  than 
the  words  of  the  law.  Instead  of  speaking  of 
the  testimony  of  two  witnesses,  it  speaks  of 
the  testimony  of  tAVO  men,  perhaps  in  order 
to  direct  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  law  was 
applicable  to  ordinary  men,  rather  than  to 
the  Messiah.  The  order  of  the  Greek  words 
favors  this  view  by  making  the  words  two 
men  emphatic,  thus :  that  of  tivo  men  the  tes- 


188 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


IS  I  am  one  that  bear  witness  of  myself,  and  « the 
Father  that  sent  me  beareth  witness  of  me. 

19  Then  said  they  iiuto  him,  Where  is  thy  Father? 
Jesus  auswereU,  *  Ye  neither  know  me,  nor  my  Father: 
«if  ye  had  known  me,  ye  should  have  known  my  Fa- 
ther also. 

2U  These  words  sjiake  Jesus  in  "*  the  treasury,  as  he 
taught  iu  the  temple :  and  «  no  man  laid  hands  on  him ; 
for  /  his  hour  was  not  yet  come. 


18  ten,  that  the  witness  of  two  men  is  true.  lam  he  that 
beareth  witness  of  myself,  and  the  Father  that  seut 

19  nie  beareth  witness  of  me.  They  said  therefore  un- 
to him,  Where  is  thy  Father?  Jesus  answered.  Ye 
know  neithi-r  me,  nor  my  Father:  if  ye  knew  me, 

20  ye  would  know  my  Father  also.  These  words  spake 
he  in  the  treasury,  as  he  taught  in  the  temple:  and 
no  man  took  him;  because  his  hour  was  not  yet  come. 


ach.  5:  37 b  ver.  55;  ch.  16:  3 cch.  U:  7 d  Mark  12:  41 e  cU.  7  :  30..../ch.  7  :  «. 


timonyis  true.  If  not  subject  to  the  formal 
rules  of  Jewish  law,  Jesus  asserts  that  his  tes- 
timony fulfills,  in  a  very  real  and  deep  sense, 
the  requirement  of  that  law. 

18.  I  am  one  (rather,  I  am  he)  that  bear 
witness  of  myself,  and  the  Father  that 
sent  me  beareth  witness  of  me.  (See  5: 
10-30).  By  this  language,  Josus  intends  to 
affirm,  not  that  by  any  act  separate  from  his 
own  the  Father  bears  witness  of  him,  but  that 
his  own  testimony  is  tlie  testimony  of  the  Fa- 
ther as  well.  So  profound  and  complete  is 
the  union  between  them,  that  the  word  of  the 
theanthropic  Christ  is  the  word  of  his  Father 
also. 

19.  Then  (or,  therefore)  said  they  unto 
him.  Where  is  thy  Father?  Well  does 
Me^'er  pronounce  this  question  of  the  Phari- 
sees '^^ frivolous  mockery.'^  For  they  could 
not  have  been  in  doubt  as  to  his  meaning. 
They  must  have  been  fully  convinced  that  he 
spoke  of  God  as  his  Father.  But  thej-  rejected 
his  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and  de- 
manded of  him,  in  derision,  where  his  Father 
might  be.  Ye  neither  know  me,  nor  my 
Father.  Ignorance  of  Christ  and  ignorance 
of  God  go  together.  Nay,  since  Christ  is  the 
light  of  the  world,  to  be  ignorant  of  him  is  to 
be  ignorant  of  true  knowledge— the  knowl- 
edge of  God.  If  ye  had  knoAvn  me,  etc. 
The  Revised  Version  is  here  correct :  If  ye 
knew  me,  ye  would  know  my  Father  also.  For 
the  meaning,  compare  the  words  of  Jesus  in 
14:  7-9;  16:  3;  and  Matt.  11:  27.  To  know 
Christ  is  to  know  God ;  for  at  the  very  root  of 
being  they  are  one.  The  Father  is  in  the 
Son,  and  whatsoever  the  Father  doeth,  the 
Son  doeth  in  like  manner.  The  reverseof  this 
is  also  true,  that  whatsoever  the  Son  doeth, 
the  same  doth  the  Father  likewise. 

20.  These  words  spake  Jesus  (rather, 
he)  in  the  treasury,  as  he  taught  in  the 
temple.  This  exact  specification  of  the  place 
in  which  Jesus  spoke  thus  to  the  Pharisees  is 
natural,  if  the  writer  was  John,  and  if  he  was 


present  at  the  time;  but  it  is  by  no  means 
natural,  if  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written,  as 
?onie  aver,  by  an  unknown  Christian,  living 
far  down  in  the  second  century.  The  treas- 
ury appears  to  have  been  located  in  the  Wo- 
men's Court.  (Compare  Mark  12:  41;  and 
Luke  21 :  1).  According  to  the  Mishna,  there 
were,  in  the  temple,  thirteen  treasure-chests, 
for  the  reception  of  gifts  of  money,  to  be  de- 
voted to  so  many  special  purposes,  designated 
by  the  inscriptions  upon  them.  These  were 
called  "trumpets,  "  either  from  their  shape,  or 
from  the  shape  of  the  opening  into  which  the 
contributions  were  dropped.  They  are  gen- 
erally identified  with  the  "treasuries"  men- 
tioned by  Josephus  ('B. j." v. 5, 2),  who  speaks 
of  the  cloisters  which  surrounded  the  Court 
of  the  Women,  on  the  inside  of  its  wall,  as 
placed  before  them  ;  and  they  may,  perhaps, 
have  been  collectively  called  "the  treasury'" 
in  the  passages  of  Mark  and  Luke  above  re- 
ferred to.  In  John  8:  20,  it  would  seem 
probable  that  the  Court  of  the  Women  is  it- 
self called  "the  treasurj',"  "because  it  con- 
tained these  repositories." — Abbott,  in  Smith's 
"Diet,  of  the  Bible."  And  no  man  laid 
hands  on  him  (i.  e.,  took  him);  for  his  hour 
was  not  yet  come.  Doubtless,  the  Evan- 
gelist, who  was  present,  saw  many  indications 
of  deadly  hostility  to  Jesus  on  the  part  of  the 
Jews.  They  desired  to  seize  him  by  violence, 
and  put  him  to  death.  But  the  hour  which 
had  been  fixed  in  the  councils  of  God  for  such 
violence  was  not  yet  come.  Yet  we  are  not 
informed  of  the  obstacles  which  prevented 
the  enemies  of  Christ  from  laying  hands  on 
him  at  this  time.  The  Evangelist  is  satisfied 
with  tracing  his  escape  to  the  purpose  and 
providence  of  God.  But  this  is  an  evidence 
that  the  hatred  of  the  Jews  seemed  to  him 
deadly. 

21-30.    Colloquy    Respecting    His 
Death. 

Verse  20  suggests  that  the  conversation  with 
the  Pharisees  ended  with  the  saying  of  Jesus 


Ch.  VIII.] 


JOHN. 


189 


21  Then  said  Jesus  again  unto  them,  I  go  my  way,  and 

0  ye  shall  seek  lue,  and  'shall  die  in  your  sins:  whither 

1  go,  ye  cannot  come. 

tl  Then  said  the  Jews,  Will  he  kill  himself?  because 
he  saith,  Whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come. 

23  And  he  said  unto  them,  "^  Ye  are  from  beneath ;  I 
am  from  above :  "^  ye  are  of  this  world,  I  am  not  of  this 
world. 

24  e  I  said  therefore  unto  you,  that  ye  shall  die  in 
your  sins: /for  if  ye  believe  not  that  I  am  he,  ye  shall 
die  in  your  sins. 


21  He  said  therefore  again  unto  them,  I  go  away,  and 
ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  die  iu  your  sin:  whither  I 

22  go,  ye  cannot  cume.  The  Jews  therefore  said,  Will 
he   kill   himself,   that   he  saith,   Whither  I   go,  ye 

2.3  cannot  come?  And  he  said  unto  them,  Ye  are  from 
beneath  ;  I  am  from  above :  ye  are  of  this  world ;  I 

24  am  not  of  this  world.  I  said  therefore  unto  you, 
that  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins:  for  except  ye  believe 


och.  7:34;  13:33 6  ver.  24....coh.  3:31 <2cb.  15:  19;  17  :  16  ;  1  John  4:  5....e  ver.  •-!1..../Mark  16:  16. 


recorded  in  verse  19.  The  particular  persons 
who  had  undertaken  to  answer  him  and  judge 
him  were  silenced,  and  honce  they  seem  to 
have  passed  on  their  way.  But  Jesus  re- 
mained in  the  Court  of  the  Women,  ready  to 
declare  the  truth  to  all  who  would  hear. 

21.  Then  said  Jesus  again  unto  them. 
Better:  He  said  therefore  again  unto  them. 
By  them  must  be  meant,  not  the  Pharisees 
spoken  of  in  the  foregoing  paragraph,  but  the 
people  who  were  now  in  the  Court,  most  of 
whom  were  in  nearly  the  same  moral  state  as 
the  Pharisees.  I  go  my  Avay  (or,  away). 
(Compare  7:  33,  34;  13:  33).  By  these  words 
Jesus  predicts  his  approaching  separation  from 
this  world,  and  from  those  to  whom  he  was 
speaking.  As  the  end  of  his  earthly  life 
draws  near,  he  often  refers  to  it.  And  ye 
shall  (or,  will)  seek  me.  You  will  long  for 
deliverance  from  impending  evil;  you  will 
wish  for  the  Messiah  to  rescue  you  from  de- 
struction; iDUt  in  vain.  The  evil  will  come 
upon  you.  And  shall  (or,  will)  die  in 
your  sins  (or,  sin).  That  is,  encompassed  by 
it,  oppressed  by  it,  condemned  on  account  of 
it.  You  will  die  unforgiven.  The  sin  here 
meant  is  sin  in  general — all  the  sin  of  wViich 
the  people  addressed  had  been  guilty,  and  not 
specially  the  sin  of  unbelief;  though  their 
unbelief  in  Jesus  was  certainly  the  reason 
why  they  would  find  no  forgiveness,  but  die 
in  their  sin.  Whither  I  go,  ye  cannot 
come.  The  pronouns  I  and  ye  are  emphatic. 
The  contrast  between  the  two  parties  is  clear 
and  pronounced.  His  destination  is  mani- 
festly assumed  to  be  heaven  ;  but  to  that 
blessed  place  they  are  unable  to  come.  It  is 
a  place  without  sin,  and  only  those  who  have 
been  delivered  from  sin  can  enter  it.  The 
language  of  Jesus  is  fearfully  direct  and  posi- 
tive. But  it  makes  no  deep  impression  on  the 
self-righteous  persons  addressed. 

22.  Then  said  the  Jews  (or,  therefore, 
the  Jews  were  saying).     The  words  passed 


from  one  to  another,  and  were  uttered  with  a 
tone  of  levity  and  contempt.  Will  he  kill 
himself?  or,  "  he  will  not  kill  himself,  will 
Ae.?"  As  if  that  were  the  only  way  in  which 
he  could  go  to  a  place,  nanielj', Gehenna, where 
they  could  not  follow.  For  suicide  was  re- 
garded as  the  greatest  sin,  dooming  one  to  the 
lowesthell.  "The mockery,  which  also Hengs- 
tenberg  denies  without  reason,  is  similar  to 
that  in  7:  35,  but  more  malignant." — Meyer. 
For  the  Jewish  idea  of  suicide,  see  Josephus' 
"  Wars  of  the  Jews,"  III.,  viii.,  5.  No  won- 
der his  response  was  plain,  and  even  severe. 

23.  Ye  are  from  beneath;  I  am  from 
above:  ye  are  of  (from)  this  ^vorld,  etc. 
There  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for 
translating  the  same  preposition  from  in  the 
first  two  clauses,  and  of  in  the  last  two.  In 
both  instances  it  means  from,  pointing  to  the 
origin  or  source.  From  beneath  and  from 
this  "world  are  equivalent  expressions,  denot- 
ing the  merely  earthly  origin  of  the  Jews, 
while  from  above  and  not  from  this  world 
manifestly  point  to  the  heavenly  origin  of 
Jesus.  (See  3:  31;  1  Cor.  15:  47,  48;  1  John, 
4:5.)  That  the  character  of  the  .Jews,  and  the 
character  of  Christ,  correspond  with  their 
origin  respectively,  is  clearly  implied.  The 
stream  is  like  the  fountain.  That  which  is 
born  of  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born 
of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.  An  evil  tree  cannot 
bring  forth  good  fruit,  neither  can  a  good  tree 
bring  forth  evil  fruit. 

24.  I  said  therefore  unto  you,  that  ye 
shall  {will)  die  in  your  sins.  Jesus  asserts 
that  their  origin  from  a  sinful  race,  with  their 
character  agreeing  with  their  origin,  renders 
it  certain  that,  remaining  as  they  are,  they  will 
die  without  being  delivered  from  either  the 
power  or  the  guilt  of  their  sins.  For  to  die  in 
one's  sins,  is  to  die  unrenewed  and  unforgiven. 
By  using  the  plural  sins  instead  of  the  singu- 
lar sin  as  in  (ver.  21),  Jesus  may  have  in- 
tended to  fix  special  attention  on  the  latter 


190 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


25  Then  said  they  unto  him,  Who  art  thou  ?  And 
Jesus  saith  unto  them,  liven  the  same  that  I  said  unto 
you  from  the  begiuuiug. 

26  I  have  mauy  things  to  say  and  to  judge  of  you ;  but 
«  he  that  sent  me  is  true ;  and  '  I  speak  to  thie  world 
those  things  which  I  have  heard  of  liim. 


25  that  I  am  he,  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins.  They  said 
therefore  unto  him.  Who  art  thou?  Jesus  said  unto 
them,  1  Even  that  which  I  have  also  spoken  unto 

26  you  from  the  beginning.  I  have  mauy  things  to 
speak  and  to  judge  concerning  you:  howbeit  he 
that  sent  me  is  true;  and  the  things  which  I  heard 


a  ch.  7  :  28...  .5  cb.  3  :  32  ;  15  :  15. 1  Or,  Altogether  that  which  I  also  speak  unto  you. 


fact,  that  they  would  die  unforgiven;  for, 
while  the  New  Testament  often  uses  the  word 
sin  to  denote  the  moral  condition  of  the  natural 
man,  it  always  uses  the  plural  form,  sins, 
when  it  speaks  of  forgiveness.  For  if  ye  be- 
lieve not  that  I  am  (he),  ye  shall  die  in 
your  sins.  "  There  is  a  possibility  of  escape, 
but  only  through  faith  in  me."  The  implica- 
tion being,  that  they  are  unprepared  to  yield 
this  confidence  to  him,  and  that  they  will  die 
under  condemnation.  We  sujiply  the  predi- 
cate "he,"  meaning  the  Messiah,  though 
numy  excellent  interpreters  believe  that  the 
words  I  am  denote  the  self-existent  and  divine 
nature  of  Jesus.  Thus  Westcott  remarks 
"that  the  phrase  I  am"  {iyu>  el/nt)  occurs  three 
times  in  this  chapter  (ver.  24,  28,  58;  compare 
13:  19),  and  on  each  occasion,  as  it  seems, 
with  this  pregnant  meaning.  (Compare  Deut. 
32:  30;  Isa.  43 :  10. )  But  he  admits  that  "else- 
where, in  cases  where  the  predicate  is  directly 
suggested  by  the  context,  this  predicate  simply 
is  to  be  supplied:  (9:9;  18:5;  6:  8;  compare 
6:  20;  Matt.  14:  27;  Mark  6:  50;  14:62; 
Luke  22:  70).  And  so  it  is  used  of  the  Mes- 
siah :  (Mark  13:  6;  Luke  21:8)."  Either 
interpretation  is  certainly  possible,  but  we  be- 
lieve that  the  question  between  Christ  and 
these  Jews  related  to  his  Messiahship. 

35.  Who  art  thou?  This  question  was 
probably  asked  in  a  tone  of  incredulity  and 
contempt.  "  Your  claim  is  very  extraordinary  ; 
who  then  are  you,  pray?"  Perhaps  the  verbal 
indefiniteness  of  his  words  recorded  in  ver. 
24— "I  am,"  instead  of  "I  am  the  Messiah," 
—led  them  to  ask  this  question,  though  they 
understood  well  enough  what  he  meant. 
Even  the  same  that  I  said  unto  you  from 
the  beginnina;.  The  meaning  of  the  original 
sentence  is  uncommonly  obscure.  In  trans- 
lating it,  the  Revised  Version,  the  Revised 
Bible,  the  Bible  Union  Revision,  and  a  num- 
ber of  commentators  agree  substantially  with 
the  Common  Version.  Yet  it  is  doubtful 
whether  the  Greek  phrase  -ntvapxvv)  translated 
from  the  beginning  ever  has  that  meaning. 
John  expresses  that  thought  by  a  different 


phrase  (viz:  an  opx»)s  or  e^  apxhs),  and  one 
which  is  entirely' clear.  Moreover,  the  origi- 
nal of  the  verb  translated  said,  is  in  the 
present  tense,  and  means,  properly,  /  speak 
or  say.  But  the  perfect  tense  would  more 
naturally  have  been  used  if  the  adverbial 
phrase  was  understood  to  signify  from  the 
beginning.  Hence  we  are  not  satisfied  with 
this  version.  But  the  Revised  Bible  gives 
another  in  the  margin,  viz.  :  Altogether  that 
vjhlch  I  am  also  telling  you.  And  it  seems  to 
be  pretty  well  established  that  the  expression 
(t))v  apxvv)  may  signify  altogether,  wholly,  or 
entirely  {=omnino').  The  sentence  then  means, 
according  to  Grimm,  "Winer  and  many  others, 
I a')n  wholly  that  ivhich  I  also  say  to  you;  or 
"  not  only  I  am,  but  I  am  also  saying  to  you 
what  I  am :  there  is  then  no  reason  why  you 
should  ask  me."  There  is  a  touch  of  dis- 
pleasure and  reproof  in  his  reply,  thus  inter- 
preted. But  there  is  still  more  of  these  accord- 
ing to  a  third  view  of  his  words,  namely,  that 
they  are  to  be  understood  as  a  question.  This 
view  is  given  in  the  margin  of  the  Rev.  Ver., 
Eng.  Ed.  :  How  is  it  that  I  even  speak  to  you  at 
all  ?  or,  ivherefore  do  I  even  speak  to  you  at 
all?  "Your  spirit  is  such  as  to  render  you 
unworthy  of  any  word  from  me.  It  is  vain  to 
testify  to  you  the  truth  concerning  myself  or 
my  mission."  This  appears  to  have  been  the 
interpretation  given  to  the  sentence  by  the 
Greek  Fathers,  and  it  is  adopted  by  Meyer, 
Weiss,  Watkins,  Milligan  and  Moulton. 
Westcott  wavers  between  this  and  the  pre- 
ceding view.  Either  of  them  agrees  with  the 
context,  but  the  one  last  named  is  more  forci- 
ble, and  besides  has  in  its  favor  the  judgment 
of  those  to  whom  the  Grdek  was  their  native 
language. 

26.  I  have  many  things  to  say  and  to 
judge  of  you.  According  to  the  order  of 
the  Greek  words,  the  term  signifying  many 
things  is  emphatic,  and  the  same  is  true  in 
a  lower  degree  of  the  expression  of  you. 
Whether  these  many  things  of  a  condemna- 
torj'  character  were  actualh'  said  by  Jesus,  or 
were  merely  alluded  to  and  passed  by  ia  si- 


Ch.  VIIL] 


JOHK 


191 


27  They  understood  not  that  he  spake  to  them  of  the 
Father. 

•28  Then  said  Jesus  unto  thciii,  When  ye  have  "  lifted 
up  the  Sou  of  man  'thon  shall  ye  know  that  I  am  he, 
SLwi'lhat  I  do  nothing  of  myself;  but ''as  my  Father 
hath  taught  me,  I  speak  these  tilings. 

29  Aud«he  that  sent  me  is  witn  me:  /the  Father 
hath  not  left  me  alone ;  e  for  I  do  always  those  thiugs 
that  please  him. 


27  from  him,  these  speak  I  unto  the  world.  They  per- 
ceived  not  that  he  spake   to  them   of  the   Father. 

28  Jesus  therefore  said,  When  ye  have  lifted  up  the 
Son  of  man,  then  shall  ye  know  that  i  I  am  Jie,  and 
thai  I  do  nothing  of  myself,  but  as  the  Father  taught 

29  me,  I  speak  these  things.  And  he  that  sent  me  is 
with  lue;  he  hath  not  left  me  alone;  for  I  do  always 


a  ch.  3:  15:  12:  32.... i  Rom.  1 :  4....C  ch.  5 :  19,  30....dch.  3:  ll....<;ch.  U:  10,  ll..../ver.  16....pcli.  4:  34;  5:  30; 

am  be  :   and  I  do. 


-1  Or,  / 


lence,  depends  upon  the  relivtion  of  this  clause 
to  the  foHovving.  But  he  that  sent  me  is 
true ;  and  I  speak  to  the  world  those 
things  which  I  have  heard  of  him  (lit.,  the 

things  wldch  I  heard  from  him).  The  word 
but  nitty  indicate  that  what  he  speaks  is  what 
he  heard  from  the  Father,  who  is  true,  and 
that  it  is  .something  different  from  the  many 
things  which  lie  has  it  in  his  power  to  say  of 
the  Jews  before  him  ;  or  it  maj'  indicate  that 
these  many  things  are  not  simjily  judgments 
of  his  own,  formed  independently  of  the  Fa- 
ther, but,  rather,  what  he  had  heard  from  the 
Source  of  truth,  by  whom  he  was  sent  into 
the  world.  The  latter  view  is  preferable  to 
the  former. 

27.  They  understood  (or,  knew)  not  that 
he  spake  to  them  of  the  Father.  This 
statement  has  been  pronounced  inconsistent 
with  the  context,  and  therefore  incredible. 
But  we  are  to  bear  in  mind  (1)  that  the  multi- 
tudes whom  Jesus  addressed  in  the  temple 
were,  in  all  probability,  constantly  changing; 
(2)  that  the  failure  of  the  Jews  whom  he  was 
now  addressing  to  perceive  that  he  referred  to 
the  Father  as  the  One  who  had  sent  him,  is 
mentioned  just  because  it  was  surprising;  (3) 
that  this  failure  to  understand  the  Lord  was, 
in  reality,  no  more  unaccountable  than  many 
instances  of  similar  failure  on  the  part  of  the 
disciples,  when  things  were  said  which  they 
did  not  wish  to  believe;  and  (4)  that  the 
blinding  influence  of  prejudice  and  passion  is 
often  trulj' amazing  and  unaccountable.  There 
is,  therefore,  no  sufficient  reason  for  calling  in 
question  this  plain  assertion  of  the  Evangelist. 

28.  Omit  the  words  unto  them,  in  the  first 
clause;  for,  according  to  the  best  editors,  it 
did  not  belong  to  the  earliest  text.  When  ye 
have  lifted  up  the  Son  of  man.  These 
words  refer  to  his  death  on  the  cross,  which 
was  to  be  eflTected  by  the  enmity  of  the  Jews, 
through  the  agency  of  Roman  soldiers  (com- 
pare 3:  14;  6:  62).  Then  shall  ye  know 
that  I  am  [he].    On  the  question  whether 


"he"  should  be  supplied  after  am,  see  Note 
on  verse  21.  The  crucifixion  of  Christ  was  to 
be  the  source  of  his  power.  By  it  he  was  to 
draw  all  men  to  himself.  (12:32.)  In  conse- 
quence of  it  he  was  to  be  glorified  with  the 
Father,  and  to  give  the  Holy  Spirit.  (Acts 2: 32, 
sq.;  Phil.  2:9,  sq.)  Aud  that  I  do  uothing  of 
(/?-om)  myself.  In  other  words:  "  You  look 
upon  me  as  a  man,  speaking  and  acting  for 
my-self,  like  other  men.  But  this  is  not  the 
case.  No  word  or  act  of  mine  springs  from 
myself  alone,  apart  from  God."  But  as  my 
Father  hath  taught  me,  I  speak  these 
things.  Or,  as  in  the  Rev.  Ver.  :  But  as  the 
Father  taught  m,e,  I  speak  these  things.  The 
tense  of  the  verb  taught  carries  the  mind 
back  to  the  pre-existent  state  of  Jesus,  who, 
in  his  higher  nature,  the  Word,  was  with  God 
before  the  world  was.  Hence  the  Saviour 
claims  not  only  that  his  teaching  is  truly  di- 
vine, but  also  that  it  was  in  the  mind  of  God 
before  the  incarnation.  And  this  statement 
accords  with  the  view  that  even  the  details  of 
redemption  were  all  known  and  fixed  in  the 
counsels  of  heaven  from  eternity.  The  pro- 
noun my,  before  Father,  in  the  Common  Ver- 
sion, must  bo  considered  an  addition  to  the 
original  text. 

29.  And  he  that  sent  me  is  with  me. 
This  clause  may  be  connected  with  the  fore- 
going statements  back  to  ye  shall  knoAv; 
thus  :  "  Then  shall  ye  know  that  I  am  he,  and 
that  I  do  nothing  from  myself,  but  as  the 
Father  taught  me  I  speak  these  things,  and 
that  he  that  sent  me  is  with  me."  The  la.st 
assertion  is  then  repeated  negatively  :  He  (the 
true  reading,  instead  of  the  Father)  hath 
not  left  me  alone — at  any  moment  or  in  any 
act  of  my  career;  and  for  an  all-sufficient 
reason:  because  I  do  always  the  (not 
those)  things  that  please  him.  This  claim 
is  absolute,  unqualified.  Jesus  declares  him- 
self consciousof  doing  his  Father's  will  always 
and  in  all  respects.  He  is  certain  of  being 
positively  holy  in  conduct;  and,  according  to 


192 


JOHK 


[Ch.  VIII. 


30  As  he  spake  these  words,  «  many  believed  on  him. 

31  Then  said  Jesus  to  those  Jews  which  believed  on 
him,  If  ye  continue  in  my  word,  then  are  ye  my  disci- 
ples indeed; 

32  And  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  ^  the  truth  shall 
make  you  free. 

83  They  answered  him,  <;  We  be  Abraham's  seed,  and 
were  never  in  bondage  to  any  man :  how  sayest  thou. 
Ye  shall  be  made  free  ? 

34  Jesus  answered  them.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  <"■  Whosoever  committeth  sin  is  the  servant  of  sin. 


30  the  things  that  are  pleasing  to  him.  As  he  spake 
these  things,  many  believed  on  him. 

31  Jesus  therefore  said  to  those  Jews  who  had  be- 
lieved him.  If  ye  abide  in  my  word,  thtn  are  ye  truly 

32  my  disciples ;  and  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the 

33  truth  shall  make  you  free.  They  answered  unto 
him.  We  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  have  never  yet 
been  in  bondage  to  any  man :  how  sayest  thou.  Ye 

34  shall  be  made  free?  Jesus  answered  them.  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Every  one  that  committeth 


a  oh.  7:  31;  10:  42;  II:  45 5  Rom.  6 :  14,  18,  22  ;  8:  2 ;  James  1 :  25;  2:  12 c  Lev.  25:  42;  Matt.  3:9;  ver.  39 d  Rom.  6:  16,  20; 

2  Pet.  2  :  19. 


his  own  view  of  conduct,  this  includes  all  the 
movements  of  the  heart.  («»".  5: 28.)  Well  may 
Paul  say  that  "he  knew  no  sin."   (acor. 5:21.) 

30.  As  lie  spake  these  words,  many 
believed  ou  him.  Such  dignity  and  au- 
thority were  in  the  look  and  tone  and  teaching 
of  Jesus,  that  many  were  convinced  of  his 
truthfulness,  and  accepted  him  in  their  hearts 
as  the  Christ.  But,  if  they  are  the  persons 
addressed  in  the  next  verse,  their  belief  was 
no  more  trustworthy  than  that  of  the  Jews, 
mentioned  in  2:  23  sq.  It  was  a  belief  to  be 
proved,  and  not  one  to  be  accepted  as  genuine 
and  suiRcient  without  trial.  But  it  is  possible 
that  the  many,  here  spoken  of,  are  not  identi- 
cal with  "the  Jews  whohad  believ.'d,"  in  ver. 
31,  but  were  persons  who  had  truly  confided 
in  him  (els  aiToi/),  and  patiently  waited  for  a 
complete  revelation  of  his  reign.  For  the  ex- 
pression here  used  denotes  faijh  in  a  person, 
which  is  often  times  a  very  different  thing  from 
mere  acceptance  of  a  person's  language  as 
true. 

31-59.    Conversation    on    Spiritual 
Freedom  and  Sonship  to  God. 

31.  I'hen  said  Jesus,  etc. — or  better,  as  in 
Kev.  Ver. :  Jesus  therefore  said  to  those  Jews 
who  had  believed  him,  etc.  It  seems  that 
some  of  the  men  who  were  convinced  by  his 
word  and  led  to  manifest  in  some  way  their 
belief  of  it — not  their  belief  in  Aim— were  per- 
sons of  influence,  perhaps  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin,  certainly  adherents  of  the  Jewish 
view  concerning  the  Messiah.  Jesus  perceived 
in  them  a  lack  of  spiritual  trust,  and  foresaw 
that  they  would  not,  all  of  them,  continue  in 
his  word.  He  therefore  proceeded  to  test  their 
faith  by  asserting  the  necessity  and  the  result 
of  continuing  in  his  word.  If  belief  be  deep 
and  genuine,  it  will  be  permanent;  if  it  be 
shallow,  without  root  or  substance,  it  will  soon 
vanish  away.     Its  character  may  therefore  be 


inferred  from   its  endurance  and  its  fruit.     If 
ye  continue,  etc. 

32.  And  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and 
the  truth  shall  make  you  free.  Blessed 
prospect!  By  living  in  the  element  and 
atmosphere  of  Christ's  word,  they  would 
learn  the  supreme  truth,  the  .secret  of  peace 
with  God ;  and  this  would  set  them  free  from 
bondage  and  sin.  (ver. 34.)  But,  alas!  their 
minds  were  intent  on  earthly  things.  The 
Messiah  expected  by  them  was  one  who  would 
make  Israel  the  head  of  the  nations.  And 
therefore,  though  the  tenor  of  Chri«t's  pre- 
vious remarks  should  have  led  them  to  think 
of  him  as  pre-eminently  the  Kevealer  of  God 
to  men,  they  missed  the  sense  of  his  words 
and  were  offended.     Hence  their  answer. 

33.  We  be  (arc)  Abraham's  seed,  and 
were  never  in  bondage  to  any  man  :  how 
sayest  thou,  Ye  shall  be  made  free? 
Abraham  was  to  be  a  father  of  many  nations 
and  a  blessing  to  all  the  families  of  mankind, 
and  these  Jews  consider  themselves  his  off- 
spring, and  heirs  to  his  position  and  destiny. 
With  such  a  position  they  deem  civil  bondage 
incompatible,  and  promptly  resent  the  impu- 
tation that  thej'  have  ever  been  in  such 
bondage,  either  to  the  Emperor  of  Rome  or  to 
any  one  else.  Probably,  in  their  zeal,  they 
think  only  of  themselves  and  their  contempo- 
raries, forgetting  the  captivity  in  Babylon  and 
the  earlier  bondage  in  Egypt.  How  different 
were  their  thoughts  from  those  of  Jesus  I 

34.  Whosoever  (or,  every  one  who)  com- 
mitteth (doeth)  sin  is  a  (not  the)  servant  of 
sin.  The  expression  who  doeth  sin  implies  a 
certain  continuance  in  sin  on  the  part  of  the 
person  thus  characterized.  But  one  need  not 
continue  long  in  the  practice  of  sin,  in  order  to 
find  himself  in  bondage  to  a  hard  master. 
For  the  worst  tj'rant  a  man  can  serve  is  his 
own  selfish  heart.     By  rejecting  the  authority 


Ch.  VIIL] 


JOHN. 


193 


35  And  « the  servant  abideth  not  in  the  house  for 
ever:  bat  the  Son  abiJeth  ever. 

3U  '  If  the  Sou  therefore  shall  make  you  free,  ye  shall 
be  free  indeed. 

37  I  know  that  ye  are  Abraham's  seed;  but  "ye  seek 
to  kill  me,  because  my  word  hath  no  place  in  you. 

38  ■*  I  speak  that  u  hich  1  have  seen  with  my  Father : 
and  ye  do  that  which  ye  have  seen  with  your  father. 


35  sin  is  the  bondservant  of  sin.    And  the  bondservant 

abideth  not  in  the  house  forevei  :  the  sou  abideth 

3()  for  ever.     If  therefore  the  Son  shall  make  you  free, 

37  ye  shall  be  free  indeed.  I  know  that  ye  are  Abra- 
ham's seed;   yet  ye  seek   to   kill   me,   because   my 

38  word  1  hath  not  free  course  in  you.  I  speak  tlie 
things  whicli  I  have  seen  with  -  my  Father:  and  ye 
also  do  the  things  which  ye  heard  from  your  father. 


a  Gal.  4:  30 6  Bom.  8:2;  Gal.  5:1 c  ch.  7  :  19  ;  ver.  40 d  ch.  .3:  32  j  5  :  19,  30;  U:  10,  24. 1  Or,  hath  no  pla 

the  Father  :  do  ye  also  therefore  the  things  which  ye  heard  from  the  Father. 


!  in  you. ..  .2  Or 


of  God  in  the  interest  of  self-will  or  .supposed 
freedom,  one  sinks  into  the  most  hopeless 
slavery.  Jesus  made  no  mistake  in  assuming 
that  the  Jews  in  his  presence  were  slaves  of 
sin,  and  in  need  of  the  true  freedom  which  he 
alone  could  give.  (See  liom.  6:  17,  sq.  ;  7: 
14,  sq.) 

35.  And  the  servant  (or,  bond-servant) 
abideth  not  in  the  house  for  ever:  but 
the  Son  abideth  ever.  A  double  statement, 
founded  on  the  customs  of  civil  society.  For, 
according  to  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  usages 
of  the  people,  the  relation  of  a  bondman  to 
the  family  was  but  temporary,  while  that  of  a 
son  was  permanent.  But  sonship  in  the  house 
of  God  depends,  not  upon  natural,  but  upon 
spiritual,  descent  from  Abraham — upon  hav- 
ing the  faith  of  Abraham.  He,  therefore,  who 
is  a  bond-servant  of  sin,  has  not  the  place  and 
privilege  of  a  son  in  the  house  of  God.  He 
belongs  to  the  world,  and  in  the  world  there 
is  no  true  freedom.  Though  connected  with 
the  theocracy  in  a  temporary  and  external 
manner,  he  is  not  really  at  home  with  the 
children  of  God;  and  when  the  new  and  spir- 
itual kingdom  is  set  up,  he  will  be  cast  out. 
But  it  is  wholly  different  with  the  son— that 
is,  with  him  who  realizes  the  idea  and  position 
of  son — he  continues  in  the  house  forever;  it 
is  his  home  and  heritage ;  all  that  the  father 
hath  is  his,  and  he  administers  the  affairs  of 
the  house  as  heir  and  ruler.  It  appears,  there- 
fore, that  Jesus  has  in  mind  himself  as  the 
One  who  is,  in  a  high  and  full  sense,  the  Son. 
On  this  passage  Sanday  remarks:  "The  con- 
nection between  the  first  two  clauses  (ver.  34, 35) 
is  distant  and  subtle.  The  qualification  under 
which  the  figure  of  servitude  is  introduced  is 
dropped  entirely.  The  servitude  (of  sin)  sug- 
gests the  idea  of  servitude  in  the  abstract; 
and  to  this  the  idea  of  sonship  in  the  abstract 
is  opposed.  Then  there  is  a  further  transition 
from  the  abstraction  of  sonship  to  the  Son  in 
the  concrete — the  Messiah.  And  in  the  infer- 
ence there  is  a  gap.     It  is  assumed  that  the 


Son  must  communicate  his  own  attributes  to 
those  whom  he  emancipated.  The  thougiit  is, 
indeed,  throughout,  profound  and  instructive; 
and  to  a  Jew,  always  ready  to  picture  to  liim- 
self  the  theocracy,  or  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
under  the  form  of  a  'household,'  it  would  be 
easily  intelligible."  (See  Maclaren,  Third 
Series,  2d  Sermon,  for  a  different  interpreta- 
tion of  this  verse.) 

36.  If  the  Son  therefore  shall  make 
you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  indeed  (or,  truly 
free).  Only  that  freedom  which  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  gives  to  him  who  has  been  in 
bondage  to  sin,  can  make  him  truly  free. 
(Compare  1  Cor.  3 :  22 ;  Kom.  8 :  35,  sq.;  2 Cor. 
6:  4,  sq. )  A  similar  thought  is  expressed  in 
15:  15:  "Henceforth  I  call  you  not  servants; 
for  the  servant  knoweth  not  what  his  lord 
doeth  ;  but  I  have  called  you  friends;  for  all 
things  that  I  have  heard  of  my  Father  I  have 
made  known  to  you." 

37.  I  know  that  ye  are  Abraham's  seed. 
Their  claim  to  be  the  offspring  of  Abraham 
by  natural  descent  is  thus  fully  admitted,  but 
only,  as  it  were,  in  order  to  exhibit  in  a  more 
striking  manner  their  moral  unlikeness  to 
him.  But  ye  seek  to  kill  me.  How  incon- 
ceivable that  Abraham  should  have  done  this ! 
But  why  do  they  engage  in  so  nefarious  an 
attempt  ?  Because  my  word  hath  no  place 
(better,  maketh  no  progres.s)  in  you.  That 
word  had  been  received  by  them  with  a  de- 
gree of  faith  (var.  30),  but  it  was  making  no 
advance  in  their  hearts.  On  the  contrary,  as 
it  was  more  clearly  explained,  it  met  with 
more  and  more  opposition,  and  their  moment- 
ary good  will  toward  him  was  changed  to 
deadly  antagonism. 

38.  I  speak  that  which  (or,  the  things 
which)  I  have  seen  with  my  Father  (or, 
with  the  Father).  The  original  has  the  Fa- 
ther, instead  of  my  Father.  And  Jesus  re- 
affirms by  these  words  that  his  knowledge  is 
a  result  of  personal  communion  with  the  Fa- 
ther before  coming  into,  the  world  (compare 


194 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VIIL 


39  They  answered  and  said  imto  hiin,  "Abraham  is 
our  father.  Jesus  sailli  uuto  Iheiu,  'it  ye  were  Abra- 
ham's childreu,  ye  would  do  tlie  worlis  ol  Abraliam. 

40  «  But  uow  ye  seek  to  liill  me,  a  mau  that  hath  told 
you  the  truth,  ''■  which  I  have  heard  of  God :  this  did 
not  Abraham. 

41  Ye  do  the  deeds  of  your  father.  Then  said  they 
to  him,  We  be  not  born  of  foruicaiion ;  « we  have  one 
Father,  even  God. 


39  They  answered  and  said  unto  him.  Our  father  is 
Abraham.  Jesus  sailh  unto  them.  If  ye  i  were  Abra- 
ham's childreu,  ^  ye  would  do  the  works  of  Abra- 

40  ham.  But  uow  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  mau  that 
hath  told  you  the  truth,  which  I  heard  from  God  : 

41  this  did  not  Abraham.  Ye  do  the  works  of  your 
father.    They  said  uuto  him,  We  were  not  born  of 


a  Matt.  3:9;  ver.  33 6  Rom.  2  :  28;  9:7;  Gal.  3:  7,  29 c  ver.  ■-il d  ver.  26 e  Isa.  63:   16;  6+ : 

2  Some  aucient  autboriiitjs  read,  ye  do  the  works  o/  Abraham. 


-1  Gr.  are 


ver.  28).  The  perfect  tense,  have  seen,  shows 
tluit  his  present  consciousness  is  linked  with 
the  past,  his  knowledge  on  earth  being  a  di- 
rect fruit  of  his  life  in  heaven.  The  next 
clause  is  difficult.  The  Common  Version  : 
Aud  ye  do  that  which  ye  have  seen  with 
your  father,  follows  a  text  which  is  less  ap- 
proved than  the  one  represented  by  the  Re- 
vised Version,  viz. :  And  ye  also  do  the  things 
which  ye  heard  from  your  father.  But  even 
this  does  not  quite  reproduce  the  original, 
which  may  be  translated  literally,  either: 
And  ye  therefore  do  the  things  which  ye  heard 
from  the  Father,  or,  and  do  ye  therefore  the 
things  which  ye  heard  from  the  Father.  If 
the  last  construction  be  adopted,  Jesus  makes 
another  appeal  to  the  Jews  to  do  whatever 
they  had  heard  from  God,  whom  they  es- 
teemed their  Father;  though  he  character- 
ized their  knowledge  as  received  through 
others,  while  his  own  was  due  to  his  immedi- 
ate vision.  This  is  a  possible  interpretation, 
and  is,  perhaps,  slightly  f\ivored  by  the  use  of 
the  article  the,  instead  of  the  pronoun  your, 
before  father.  Had  the  Greek  been  my  Fa- 
ther and  your  father,  the  contrast  would  have 
been  more  marked.  (See  ver.  41.)  But,  on  the 
whole,  the  sense  expressed  by  the  Rev.  Ver. 
is  probably  correct.  The  Saviour  recognizes 
the  mortal  enmity  springing  up  in  their  hearts, 
and  tells  them  plainly  that  they  are  doing 
what  "the  father"  has  told  them  to  do.  Yet 
he  does  not  name  that  father,  but  refers  to 
him,  in  the  first  instance,  obscurelJ^  "We 
may  add,  that  the  varieties  of  reading  in  this 
verse  are  very  ntimerous,  and  the  difficulty  of 
ascertaining  the  original  text  great,  if  not  in- 
superable. Yot  the  readings  agree  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  warrant  the  statement  that  one  of 
the  two  interpretations  given  above  must  be 
correct. 

39.  Abraham  is  our  father  (or,  more  em- 
phatically. Our  father  is  Abraham.)  There 
seems  to  have  been  enough  in  the  language  of 
Jesus — in  the  contrast  implied  by  the  con- 


junction "but,"  of  ver.  37,  and  in  the  anti- 
thetical clauses  or  tone  of  ver.  38— to  make 
the  Jews  understand  that  he  did  not  have  in 
mind  Abraham  as  their  father.  Hence  they 
promptly  reply :  Abraham  is  our  father. 
And  therefore  he,  in  turn,  justifies  their  inter- 
pretation of  his  moaning,  by  saying:  If  ye 
were  Abraham's  childreu — that  is,  in  a 
moral  and  religious  sense  (see  Rom  9:  8) — ye 
would  do  the  Avorks  of  Abraham — or,  such 
works  as  Abraham  did — works  of  fiiith.  It 
was  the  great  sin  of  these  Jews  that  they 
longed  for  a  visible  and  earthly  kingdom,  aud 
because  Jesus  did  not  propose  to  set  up  such  a 
kingdom,  disbelieved,  rejected,  and  opposed 
him,  though  they  knew  the  high  character  of 
his  teaching.  Some  of  the  principal  editors 
give  are  (eo-re),  instead  of  were  (^re),  in  the 
first  clause,  urging  in  favor  of  this  change  the 
fact,  that  an  irregular  form  would  be  less  likely 
to  be  changed  to  a  regular  form  by  a  tran- 
scriber than  the  reverse.  We  abide  by  the 
Common  Text,  though  the  meaning  would 
not  be  perceptibly  changed  by  accepting  the 
proposed  reading. 

40.  But  now  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man 
that  hath  told  you  (or,  spoken  to  you)  the 
truth,  which  I  have  heard  of  {from)  God : 
this  did  not  Abraham.  It  will  be  observed 
that  Jesus  here  speaks  of  himself  as  a  man. 
More  frequently  he  calls  himself  the  Son  of 
man.  He  was,  indeed,  a  true  man,  a  man 
from  men,  while  at  the  same  time,  in  virtue 
of  his  higher  nature,  he  was  truly  God.  But 
it  was  as  a  man,  coming  to  them  with  mes- 
sages from  God,  that  they  rejected  him.  Such 
an  act  Abraham  never  performed  ;  he  never 
rejected  a  well-approved  messenger  from  God, 
because  that  messenger  spoke  the  truth. 

41.  Ye  do  the  deeds  {roorks)  of  your  fa- 
ther. Thus  Jesus  affirms  that  there  is  one 
whose  character  these  Jews  possess  and  ex- 
hibit— one  in  whose  ways  they  walk,  as  a  son 
walks  in  the  waj's  of  his  father — one  who  is 
the  typical  enemy  of  Christ  and  of  truth,  and 


Ch.  VIII.] 


JOHN. 


195 


42  Jesus  said  unto  them,  <•  If  God  were  your  Father, 
ye  would  love  uie :  *  for  I  proceeded  forth  and  came 
from  God ;  '  neither  came  I  of  myself,  but  he  sent  me. 

43  "^  Why  do  ye  not  understand  my  speech?  even 
because  ye  cannot  hear  my  word. 

44  '  Ye  are  of  yoiir  father  the  devil,  and  the  lusts  of 
your  father  ye  will  do:  he  was  a  murderer  from  the 
beginning,  and /abode  not  in  the  truth,  because  there 


42  fornication ;  we  have  one  Father,  even  God.  Jesus 
said  unto  them,  If  God  were  your  Father,  ye  would 
lovenie:  for  I  came  forth  and  am  come  from  God ; 
for  neither  have  I  come  of  myself,  but  he  sent  me. 

43  Why  do  ye  not  '  undei'stand  my  speech?    Even  be- 

44  cause  ye  cannot  hear  my  word.  Ye  are  of  your 
father  the  devil,  and  the  lusts  of  your  father  it  is 
your  will  to  do.    He  was  a  murderer  from  the  be- 


o  I  John  5:  I 5  ch.  16:  27;  17:  8,  25 ccb.  5:  43;  7:  28,  29 d  ch.  7:  17 e  Malt.  13:  38;  1  John  3:8 /  Jnile  6. 1  Or, 


of  whom  all  may  be  called  children  who  reject 
Christ  and  his  word.  Whether  these  Jews 
had  any  suspicion  of  the  exact  meaning  of 
Jesus,  cannot  be  known ;  but  they  evidently 
perceived  that  his  words  were  against  them. 
For  they  responded:  We  be  (rather,  were) 
not  born  of  fornication  ;  Ave  have  one 
Father,  even  God.  When  the  children  of 
Israel  worshiped  idols,  they  were  often  repre- 
sented as  committing  fornication  with  the 
idols.  (See  Isa.  1 :  21 ;  Jer.  2:20;  3:  8,  9; 
Ezek.  16:  15,  sq.)  And  these  Jews,  perceiving 
that  Jesus  was  not  speaking  of  natural  son- 
ship,  but  rather  of  spiritual  or  religious,  deny 
that  the}-  have  any  fellowship  in  spirit  or  life 
with  idolaters.  The}'  deny  that  any  one  could 
discover  in  them  evidence  that  they  were  born 
of  idolaters — that  Baal  or  any  other  heathen 
god  was  their  father.  "IFe,"  they  proudly 
say,  "have  not  many  fathers,  as  might  be 
affirmed  in  a  religious  sense,  if  we  had  been 
born  of  Israelites  who  were  given  up  to  idol- 
atry, and  were,  like  them,  worshipers  of 
'  gods  many '  ;  but  we  have  one  Father — God : 
we  are  true  Israelites,  serving  Jehovah,  and 
him  alone."  Thus,  as  the  question  before 
them  was  in  respect  to  religious  paternity  and 
sonship,  they  claim  for  themselves  the  rela- 
tion of  sons. 

42.  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Here,  as  in 
the  preceding  verse,  the  conjunction  "there- 
fore" (o^v)  is  omitted  by  the  principal  editors, 
as  not  belonging  to  the  earliest  text.  If  God 
were  your  Father,  ye  would  love  me. 
Those  who  are  truly  children  of  God,  loving 
him  supremely,  must  love  the  Son  of  God  ; 
by  him  the  character  of  the  Father  is  fully 
revealed.  If  what  Jesus  had  so  often  affirmed 
in  these  colloquies  was  true — if  his  teaching 
and  his  working  were  also  the  teaching  and 
the  working  of  the  Father — it  was,  of  course, 
strictly  impossible  for  them  to  have  a  filial 
spirit  towards  God  without  loving  him  who 
was,  in  the  highest  sense,  the  Son  of  God— the 
brightness  of  the  Father's  glory,  and  the  ex- 


press image  of  his  person.  (Heb.  i :  3.)  For  I 
proceeded  forth  and  came  from  (or,  out 
of,  U)  God.  The  pronoun  I  is  emphatic; 
and  the  expression  proceeded,  or,  came  forth 
from  God,  presupposes  an  original  and  per- 
fect union  with  the  Father,  while  it  asserts  a 
voluntary  personal  entrance  into  a  new  con- 
dition, effected  b}''  the  incarnation.  The  ex- 
pression here  used,  says  Westcott,  "is  most 
remarkable,  and  occurs  only  in  one  other 
place,  16 :  28.  .  .  .  The  words  can  only  be  in- 
terpreted of  the  true  divinity  of  the  Son,  of 
which  the  Father  is  the  source  and  fountain. 
The  connection  described  is  internal  and  es- 
sential, and  not  that  of  presence,  or  external 
fellowship."  The  second  verb,  came,  or,  am 
coine,  represents  his  advent  as  already  accom- 
plished, so  that  he  is  now  present  among  men 
to  declare  the  will  of  God.  Neither  came  I 
of  myself,  but  he  sent  me.  He  has  come 
by  the  will  of  the  Father,  and  not  by  any  act 
of  his  own  will,  irrespective  of,  or  separate 
from,  the  will  of  the  Father.  Father  and 
Son  have  the  same  object,  the  same  purpose, 
the  same  spirit,  the  same  message.  He  that 
loves  the  Father  must  needs  love  the  Son  also. 

43.  Why  do  ye  not  understand  my 
speech?  even  because  ye  cannot  hear  my 
Avord.  The  term  translated  speech  denotes 
the  expression  of  thought  by  the  voice,  and 
the  term  translated  Avord  denotes  the  thought 
as  expressed.  Thus,  speech  refers  to  the 
manner,  and  Avord  to  the  matter  of  the  com- 
munication. If  their  hearts  had  been  pre- 
pared to  hear  and  receive  the  essential  truth 
which  he  uttered,  they  would  have  understood 
his  speech  without  difficulty.  And  it  is  still 
true  that  multitudes  fail  to  understand  the 
language  of  Scripture  in  manj'  places,  be- 
cause they  dislike  the  substance  of  what  it 
teaches.  An  evil  heart  darkens  the  under- 
standing. For  the  use  of  the  word  hear,  see 
6:  60. 

44.  Ye  are  of  your  (lit.,  the)  father,  the 
devil.     This  is  a  literal  version  of  the  best 


196 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


is  no  truth  in  hiui.     When  he  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speak- 
etli  of  his  own:  for  he  is  a  liar,  and  the  father  of  it. 


ginning,  and  standeth  not  in  the  truth,  because 
there  is  no  truth  in  him.  i  When  lie  speaketh  a  lie, 
he  speaketh   of  his  owu:  for  he   is  a  liar,  and  the 


1  Or,  When  oue  speaketh  a  lie,  lie  tpeaketh  of  Ma  own :  for  his  father  also  is  a  liar. 


supported  text.  The  father  means  the  father 
spoken  of  in  verses  38  and  41,  but  now  for  the 
first  time  distinctly  named.  Jesus  dechires 
that  by  moral  resemblance  and  affinity  they 
are  not  children  of  Abraham,  or  of  God,  but 
of  the  devil,  the  adversary  of  all  good.  And 
the  lusts  of  your  father  ye  will  do  (lit., 
wish  to  do).  The  particular  lusts,  if  any, 
which  the  Saviour  had  in  mind,  are  probably 
indicated  by  the  rest  of  the  verse.  It  is  also 
worthy  of  remark  that  this  clause  is  not 
strictly  predictive,  as  the  Common  Version, 
ye  will  do,  may  suggest;  for  the  term  will  is 
not  a  simple  auxiliary,  marking  the  future 
tense,  but  an  independent  verb,  signifying  to 
wish.  The  meaning  is  happily  expressed  in 
the  Rev.  Ver. :  It  is  your  will  to  do.  He  Avas 
a  murderer  from  the  beginning.  The 
spirit  of  the  Jews  before  him  probably  led 
Jesus  to  characterize  Satan  in  this  way.  Some 
have  found  in  the  words  a  special  reference  to 
the  death  of  Abel  by  the  hand  of  Cain ;  but 
the  use  of  the  expression  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  the  prominence  assigned  to  the 
falsehood  of  Satan  in  the  rest  of  the  verse, 
show  that  Jesus  had  in  mind  the  temptation 
by  which  our  first  parents  were  led  to  apos- 
tatize. That  was  an  act  which  "brought 
death  into  the  world,  and  all  our  woe."  It 
was  the  murder  of  mankind.  The  fratricide 
that  followed  was  a  result  of  that  act,  but  it  is 
not  specially  attributed  to  Satan  in  the  narra- 
tive of  Moses.  And  abode  (rather,  standeth) 
not  in  the  truth.  These  words  refer  to  the 
present  and  permanent  attitude  of  Satan  as  a 
moral  being.  He  is  one  who  lives  not  in  the 
sphere  and  element  of  the  truth.  He  has  no 
fellowship  with  God.  His  standing  is  not  in 
the  realm  of  what  is  Godlike,  but  in  the  realm 
of  what  is  dark,  inane,  malignant.  Because 
there  is  no  truth  in  him.  When  one  is  in 
the  truth,  it  is  because  the  truth  is  in  him. 
He  stands  and  lives,  as  a  moral  being,  in  that 
which  his  soul  loves — in  that  which  it  may  be 
said  to  inhale  as  the  breath  of  its  inner  life. 
When  he  speaketh  a  (!!Ae)  lie,  he  speaketh 
of  his  own.  That  is,  out  of  the  depths  of 
his  own  nature,  the  storehouse  of  his  own  be- 


ing, the  lusts  or  desires  which  belong  to  him- 
self. For  the  word  meaning  his  own  is 
plural,  and  a  (the)  lie  is  but  one  out  of  many 
evil  things  that  are  his.  All  his  ''lusts"  are 
evil.  "A  good  man,  out  of  the  good  treasure 
of  the  heart,  bringeth  forth  good  things  ;  and 
an  evil  man,  out  of  the  evil  treasure,  bringeth 
forth  evil  things."  (Matt.  12:35.)  The  lie  is  gen- 
eric, and  more  significant  than  a  lie.  For 
he  is  a  liar,  and  the  father  of  it  (or,  there- 
of). That  is,  of  the  liar.  This  is  regarded  as 
the  best  interpretation  of  the  somewhat  ob- 
scure original  by  Bengel,  Me3'er,  Alford, 
Godet,  Lange,  Sehaff,  Watkins.  and  others. 
Whoever,  then,  is  a  liar,  may  justl}'  be  called 
a  child  of  Satan.  Weiss,  however,  adheres  to 
the  view  which  makes  the  pronoun  it  refer  to 
the  lie  involved  in  the  id^a  of  the  word  liar. 
"  While  the  lie  is  characterized  as  "proceeding 
from  his  own,  and  while  a  reason  for  this  is  to 
be  given,  the  reference  of  the  pronoun  it  to 
the  object  of  Avhen  he  speaketh  is  free  from 
difficulty."  Winer  and  Buttmann  favor  the 
same  reference.  Milligan  and  Moulton  trans- 
late as  follows :  ' '  Whensoever  one  speaketh  the 
lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own,  because  his  father 
also  is  a  liar.  Whensoever  a  man  who  is  a 
child  of  the  devil  uttereth  falsehood,  he  is 
giving  forth  what  by  very  nature  belongs  to 
him — what  is  his  peculiar  property  by  right 
of  kindred  and  inheritance — because  his  fa- 
ther also,  the  devil,  is  a  liar."  But  is  it 
Christ's  manner  to  generalize  in  this  way?  Is 
it  not  more  like  him  to  keep  close  to  the  per- 
sons before  him,  and  point  out  directly  their 
relation  to  the  evil  one?  Besides,  whence  do 
Milligan  and  Moulton  obtain  the  indefinite 
"one"  which  they  introduce  as  the  subject  of 
speaketh  ?  Interesting  as  their  interpretation 
is,  we  cannot  believe  it  correct.  On  this  pas- 
sage, Godet  remarks  that  it  "contains  the 
most  conclusive  declaration  that  fell  from  the 
lips  of  Jesus  Christ  respecting  the  existence, 
the  personality,  and  the  activity  of  Satan.  It 
is  impossible  to  applj'  here  the  theory  of  ac- 
commodation, by  means  of  which  some  have 
sought  to  weaken  the  force  of  the  words  of 
Jesus  in  his  interviews  with  demoniacs.     Of 


Ch.  VIIL] 


JOHN. 


197 


45  Aud  because  I  tell  you  the  truth,  ye  believe  me 
not. 

46  Which  of  you  convinccth  me  of  sin?  And  if  I  say 
the  truth,  why  do  ye  not  believe  me? 

47  "  He  that  is  of  God  heareth God's  words:  ye  there- 
fore hear  them  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  God. 

48  Then  answered  the  .lews,  and  said  unto  him.  Say 
we  not  well  that  thou  art  a  Samaritan,  aud  '  hast  a 
devil? 

49  Jesus  answered,  I  have  not  a  devil ;  but  I  honour 
my  Father,  and  ye  do  dishonour  me. 


45  father  thereof.    But  because  I  say  the  truth,  ye  be- 

46  lieve  me  not.    Which  of  you  convicteth  me  of  sin? 

47  If  I  say  truth,  why  do  ye  not  believe  me?  He  that 
is  of  God,  heareth  the  words  of  God:  for  this  cause 

48  ye  hear  them  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  God.  The 
Jews  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Say  we  not  well 
that  thou    art  a  Samaritan,   aud    hast  a    demon? 

49  Jesus  answered,  I  have  not  a  demou ;  but  I  honour 


a  oh.  10:  26,  27;  1  John  4:6 6  oh.  7  :  20  ;  10:  20; 


his  own  accord,  and  plainly,  he  gives  in  this 
place  positive  instruction  on  this  mysterious 
subject." 

45.  And  because  I  tell  you  I'or,  say)  the 
truth,  ye  believe  me  not.  According  to  the 
nature  of  things,  and  the  design  of  God,  one 
should  be  believed  just  because  he  speaks  the 
truth ;  but  here  are  men  so  wedded  to  false 
views  of  God  and  his  kingdom,  that  they  re- 
ject the  teaching  of  Christ  because  it  is  true. 
In  order  to  be  believed  by  then.,  you  must 
teach  that  which  is  untrue  concerning  the 
reign  of  God  through  his  Anointed.  They 
are  at  one  with  Satan;  and,  therefore,  they 
disbelieve  him  who  has  come  to  destroy  the 
works  of  Satan. 

46.  Which  of  you  convinceth  (rather, 
convicteth)  me  of  sin?  Not  of  error,  nor 
of  falsehood,  but  of  sin.  "To  justify  their 
want  of  faith  in  what  he  said,  they  must,  at 
least,  be  able  to  accuse  him  of  some  fault  in 
what  he  did ;  for  holiness  and  truth  are  sis- 
ters.''— Godet.  But  he  challenges  them  to 
discover  the  slightest  sin  in  him  ;  a  challenge 
which  is  certainly  an  indirect  but  decisive 
claim  to  holiness.  And  if  I  say  the  truth 
(rather,  truth),  why  do  ye  not  believe  me? 
No  one  responded  to  his  challenge.  Their 
silence  was,  therefore,  a  tacit  admission  that 
his  claim  could  not  be  refuted  by  them.  But 
if  he  was  without  sin,  his  teaching  must  be 
true;  and,  whatever  men  may  do,  they  admit 
tiiat  truth  ought  to  be  believed.  Jesus,  there- 
fore, appeals  to  this  native  conviction  of  the 
soul.  "I  am  without  sin;  if  I  am  without 
sin,  I  speak  only  truth  ;  and  if  I  speak  truth, 
why  do  ye  not  believe  me?  Ye  would  be- 
lieve me  if  ye  were  of  God,  instead  of  being 
of  the  wicked  one."  The  critical  editors 
omit  the  word  and  (or,  b%it),  in  this  clause. 

47.  He  that  is  of  God,  heareth  God's 
words.  The  word  heareth  means,  as  in 
verse  43,  to  hear  and  accept.  And  to  be  of 
God,  is  to  be  morally  a  child  of  God,  loving 


what  he  loves,  and  hating  what  he  hates. 
One  who  is  thus  of  God,  hearkens  to  his 
words,  obeys  them.  Ye  therefore  hear 
them  not,   because   ye  are   not  of  God. 

The  Jews  must  be  taught  that  their  unbelief 
in  the  words  of  Jesus  was  rooted  in  their  re- 
ligious character  and  condition.  They  must 
be  made  to  feel,  if  possible,  that  a  great 
change  in  the  state  of  their  hearts  was  indis- 
pensable, if  they  were  to  appreciate  divine 
truth.  But  it  was  impossible  to  make  them 
feel  this.  The  light  did  not  find  a  place  in 
their  minds.  They  still  took  it  for  granted 
that  they  were  pre-eminently  the  children  of 
Abraham,  and  of  God.     Hence  their  reply. 

48.  Say  we  not  well,  that  thou  art  a  Sa- 
maritan, and  hast  a  devil  (or,  demon)?  To 
call  one  a  Samaritan,  was  to  pronounce  him  a 
misbeliever,  and  a  bitter  enemy  of  the  people 
of  God.  To  call  him  a  demoniac,  was  to 
represent  him  as  a  man  controlled  by  a  spirit 
of  evil  from  the  unseen  world.  The  reply  of 
the  JcAV.s  was  one  of  anger  and  contempt. 
They  rejected  the  words  of  Jesus  as  com- 
pletely false,  and  avowed  their  passionate 
hostility  to  him.  Their  language,  on  this 
occasion,  may  have  been  in  the  mind  of  Peter 
when  he  wrote,  testifying  of  Christ,  that 
"when  he  was  reviled,  he  reviled  not  again," 
etc.  (1  Pet.  2 :  23.)  His  answer  is  a  firm  and  abso- 
lute denial  of  their  accusation. 

49.  I  have  not  a  devil  (or,  demon),  but  I 
honour  my  father,  and  ye  do  dishonour 
me.  Making  no  reply  to  the  first  part  of  their 
charge,  he  calmly  denies  the  second.  '  It  is 
not  true  that  an  unclean  spirit  from  the  other 
world  possesses  me  and  speaks  through  my 
lips.  It  is  not  true  that  what  I  am  saying  is 
against  God,  or  the  real  people  of  God.  For 
God  is  my  Father,  and  my  word  honors  him; 
it  is  the  language  of  the  true  Son  of  God, 
who  speaks  that,  and  that  only,  which  is 
worthy  of  his  Father. '  But  he  does  not  stop 
with  a  re-assertion  of  his  own  holiness  and 


198 


JOHK 


[Ch.  VIII. 


50  And  « I  seek  not  mine  own  glory :  there  is  one  that 
seeketh  and  judgeth. 

51  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  'If  a  man  keep  my 
saving,  he  shall  never  see  death. 

52  Then  said  the  Jews  unto  him.  Now  we  know  that 
thou  hast  a  devil.  <;  Abraham  is  dead,  and  the  prophets; 
and  thou  sayest.  If  a  mau  keep  my  saying,  he  shall 
never  taste  of  death. 

53  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  Abraham,  which 
is  dead?  and  the  prophets  are  dead :  whom  makest  thou 
thyself? 


50  my  Father,  and  ye  dishonour  me.  But  I  seek 
nut  mine    own   glory :    there  is  one    that   seeketh 

51  and  judgeth.     Verily,   verily,  I  say  unto   you,  If  a 

52  man  keep  my  word,  he  shall  never  see  death.  The 
Jews  said  unto  him.  Now  we  know  that  thou  hast 
a  demon.  Abraham  died,  and  the  prophets;  and 
thou  sayest.  If    a  man    keep    my   word,   he    shall 

53  never  taste  of  death.  Art  tliou  greater  than 
our    father    Abraham,    who   died?    and   the   pro- 


a  ch.5:  41;  7:  18....6ch.  5  :  '24  ;  H:  26.... c  Zech.  1:5;  Heb.  11:  13. 


union  with  the  Father:  he  declares  once 
more,  their  opposition  to  God,  by  saying  that 
they  dishonor  the  Son  of  God.  He  was  be- 
fore them,  honoring  God  by  the  sinless  words, 
the  divine  truth,  which  he  spoke;  but  they 
were  dishonoring,  scorning,  and  falsely  accus- 
ing himself. 

50.  And  I  seek  not  mine  OAvn  glory. 
And,  therefore,  though  ye  dishonor,  ye  do 
not  disturb  me.  (Compare  5:41;  7:  18.) 
Indeed,  my  honor  is  not  in  peril, /or  there 
is  one  that  seeketh  and  judgeth.  God 
will  provide  for  the  glory  of  his  Son,  and 
will  judge  between  him  and  those  who  dis- 
honor his  name.  "He  that  has  God  for  his 
friend  need  not  fear  to  speak  the  truth,  though 
men  should  be  enraged  at  his  words  and  be 
ready  to  defame  his  character.  All  true  glory 
is  from  God." 

51.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  The 
repeated  verily  indicates  the  great  importance 
of  what  is  to  be  said.  If  a  man  keep  my 
saying  (see  verses  24  and  31),  he  shall  never 
see  death.  Some  would  translate  the  last 
clause:  "he  shall  not  see  death  forever," 
that  is,  he  shall  not  suffer  eternal  death. 
Though  he  will  die,  and  be  without  life  for  a 
time,  death  will  be  terminated  by  resurrec- 
tion. But  the  Greek  expression  here  used, 
justifies  and  requires  the  customary  transla- 
tion, he  shall  never  see  death;  that  is,  he 
who  keeps  the  word  of  Christ  has  already 
passed  from  death  into  life  (5: 24,)  and  death, 
in  its  deep  and  full  sense,  as  the  penaltj'  of 
sin,  will  never  be  experienced  by  him.  He  is 
alive,  spiritually,  and  is  assured  of  life  for- 
evermore.  "Death  has  been  swallowed  up 
of  life,  and  physical  death  is  thought  of,  in 
its  true  sense,  as  an  entering  into  life  "  (  Wnt- 
kbis) ;  or,  more  exactly,  as  a  passage  from 
one  stage  of  true  life  to  another. 

52.  The  Jews  said  unto  him.  Notice 
that  it  is  all  along,  the  Jews,  who  criticise 
and  defame  the  Holy  One.     Now  we  know 


(lit.,  have  known)  that  thou   hast  a  devil 

(or,  demon.)  The  exact  force  of  the  Greek 
perfect  in  the  New  Testament  is  not  easilj'  re- 
produced in  English.  Alford  supposes  that 
the  idea  of  past  time  is  nearly  or  quite  lost  in 
that  of  present  time,  and  this  view  is  some- 
times favored,  as  in  the  passage  before  us,  by 
the  addition  of  the  adverb  now.  But  the 
perfect  ten.se  always  differs  in  some  degi-ee 
from  the  present.  It  affirms  something  to  be 
true  now  which  had  its  beginning  at  some 
previous  time.  So,  here,  the  Jews  mean  to 
say  that  their  present  knowledge,  though 
clearer  now  than  ever  before,  is  not  an  abso-- 
lutely  new  thing.  They  have  been  coming 
to  this  knowledge  for  some  time,  and  are  now 
in  full  and  absolute  possession  of  it.  Abra- 
ham is  dead  (or,  died,)  and  the  prophets — 
the  greatest  and  best  men  the  world  ever  saw 
— "the  friend  of  God,"  and  the  most  eminent 
servants  of  God — and  thou  sayest,  If  a 
man  keep  my  saying,  he  shall  never  taste 
of  death.'  To  "see  death  ''  and  to  taste  of 
death  are  synonymous,  or  nearly  synony- 
mous expressions,  so  that  there  is  no  reason  to 
accuse  the  Jews  of  any  misrepresentation  of 
Christ's  language.  (Cf.  Matt.  16:  28;  Heb. 
2:9.)  Whether  they  honestly  or  perversely 
assumed  that  he  was  speaking  of  natural 
death,  is  not  .so  clear. 

53.  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father 
Abraham,  which  is  dead?  and  the  pro- 
phets are  dead  ;  whom  makest  thou  thy- 
self? The  first  question  is  ver^-  similar  to  that 
of  the  Samaritan  woman  :  "  Art  thou  greater 
than  our  father  Jacob?"  (4;  12.)  But  the  feel- 
ing with  which  it  was  uttered  was  doubtless 
more  intense.  The  Jews  here  a.ssume  the  ab- 
surdity of  any  but  a  negative  answer.  "  Thou 
art  not  greater,  surely,  than  our  father  Abra- 
ham?" Their  last  question,  whom  makest 
thou  thyself?  was  probably  uttered  with  a 
tone  and  gesture  indicative  of  pious  hoi-ror  at 
his  arrogance  and  blasphemy.     For  to  affirm 


Ch.  VIIL] 


JOHN. 


199 


54  Jesus  answered,  «  If  I  honour  myself,  my  honour 
is  nothing:  'it  is  my  Father  that  hououreth  me;  of 
whom  ye  say,  that  he  is  your  (iod  : 

55  Yet  "  ye  have  not  known  him;  hut  I  know  him: 
and  if  I  should  say,  I  know  him  not,  I  shall  be  a  liar 
like  unto  you:  but  I  know  him,  and  keep  his  saying. 

56  Your  father  Abraham  <>■  rejoiced  to  see  my  day : 
e  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad. 


54phets  died:  whom  makest  thou  thyself?  Jesus 
answered,  If  I  glorify  myself,  my  glory  is  nothing: 
it  is  my   Father  that  gloritielh   me ;  of  whom   ye 

55  say,  that  he  is  your  God;  and  ye  have  not  knowa 
hiiu :  but  I  know  him;  and  if  I  should  say  I  know 
him  not,  I  shall  be  like  unto  you,  a  liar:  but  I  know 

56  him,  and  keep  his  word.  Your  father  Abraham 
rejoiced  i  to  see  my  day ;   and  he  saw  it,  and  was 


och.  5:  31 5  5:  41;  16:  14;  17:  1 ;  Acts  3  :  13 c  ch.  7;  28,  29 d  Luke  10:  24 e  Heb.  11 :  13. 1  Or,  that  he  thoxUd  see. 


that  those  who  kept  his  word  should  not  die, 
while  those  who  had  kept  the  word  of  God  in 
ancient  times  had  died,  was  surely  to  put 
himself  on  a  level,  at  lea.st,  with  the  Most 
High.  Such  self-exaltation  they  rebuke,  de- 
claring that  it  must  be  a  result  of  demoniacal 
possession. 

54.  If  I  honour  (or,  glorify ;  fur  honour 
is  too  weak  a  term)  myself,  my  honour 
{glory)  is  nothing.  The  emphasis  is  on 
the  pronoun  I.  If  /,  ynyself,  in  distinction 
from  the  Father,  glorify  myself,  etc.  It  is 
my  Father  that  honoureth  (glorifieth)  me. 
The  Father's  love  of  the  Son  is  equal  to  the 
Son's  love  of  the  Father.  And  as  the  Son 
delights  to  honor  the  Father,  so  does  the 
Father  delight  to  honor  the  Son.  (See  5 :  20, 
22,  26,  36. )  Jesus  did  not  pass  through  his 
earthly  ministrj''  without  glory,  though  its 
source  was  divine  rather  than  human.  Of 
Avhom  ye  say  that  he  is  your  (or,  our)  God. 
By  these  words  Jesus  identifies  his  Father 
with  the  God  of  Israel.  The  reading  our 
God,  is  somewhat  better  supported  than  the 
common  text,  your  God ;  but  the  change  is 
one  that  does  not  alfect  the  meaning.  "Je- 
hovah our  God"  is  a  form  of  expression 
used  in  the  Old  Testament;  and  the  phrase 
our  God,  was,  doubtless,  frequently  on  the 
lips  of  Israelites  in  the  time  of  Christ. 

55.  Yet  ye  have  not  knoAvn  him.  Their 
professions  of  knowledge  were  loud  and  un- 
hesitating; but  the  Searcher  of  hearts,  who 
stood  before  them,  perceived  that  they  had 
never  possessed  any  true  knowledge  of  his 
Father.  For  no  one  can  know  the  Father  but 
by  the  Son,  who  is  the  Light  of  the  world. 
Whoever,  therefore,  rejects  the  Son,  has  no 
love  to  the  Father;  and  there  can  be  no  true 
knowledge  of  God  without  love  to  him.  But 
I  know  him — by  an  iinmediate,  eternal,  and 
perfect  fellowship  of  thought,  feeling,  and 
will ;  and  this  may  be  called  absolute  knowl- 
edge. (See  Matt.  11 :  27 ;  John  1:18;  3  :  13  ; 
5:  20,  22,  26,  36.)  And  if  I  should  say,  I 
know  him  not,  I  shall    be  a    liar   like 


unto  you.  "  It  would  be  as  false  for  nie  to 
say  that  I  do  not  know  him,  as  it  is  for  you  to 
affirm  that  you  do  know  him."  How  direct 
and  personal  was  this  language!  Plain,  sol- 
emn, searching,  but  manifestly  calm,  and 
without  any  bitterness  of  spirit.  But  I  know 
him,  and  keep  his  saying  (or,  word).  As 
no  one  can  have  a  true  knowle.lge  of  God 
without  having  love  to  him,  it  is  certain  that 
no  one  can  have  this  knowledge  without 
keeping  his  word.  Profoundly  conscious  of 
his  personal  communion  with  the  Father,  Je- 
sus asserts,  also,  once  more,  his  supreme  re- 
gard  to  the  Father's  will.   (4:34:  5:30;  7:18;  8:29.) 

His  claim  of  moral  perfection  is  just  as  unqual- 
ified as  his  claim  of  divine  knowledge. 

56.  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to 
see  my  day  :  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad. 

The  Greek  may  also  be  translated  :  Rejoiced 
that  he  should  see  my  day.  (See  Biittmann's 
"Gr.  of  N.  T.  Greek,"  Thayer's  Transl.,  p. 
239.)  The  passage  is  one  of  acknowledged 
difficulty,  and  the  interpretation  of  it  depends 
very  greatly  on  the  meaning  which  is  given 
to  the  words  my  day.  Nearly  all  the  best  in- 
terpreters suppose  that  these  words  refer  to 
the  earthly  ministry  of  Jesus,  or,  at  least, 
that  his  day  did  not  antedate  his  birth,  how- 
ever long  it  may  have  continued  afterwards. 
Hence,  many  of  them  conclude  that  his  words 
in  this  passage  imply  the  continued  life  of 
Abraham  after  death,  and  his  knowledge,  in 
some  way,  of  the  earthly  manifestation  and 
ministry  of  Christ.  Others  conclude  that  he 
saw  the  day  of  Christ  in  symbol,  and  by  faith, 
at  the  birth  or  offering  up  of  Isaac.  But  we 
see  no  sufficient  reason  for  the  opinion  that 
the  words  my  day  refer  to  the  earthly  min- 
istry and  manifestation  of  Christ  only.  The 
period  embraced  by  them  must  be  determined 
by  the  connection,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the 
context  to  limit  that  period  to  the  earthly 
ministry  of  Christ.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
tense  of  the  verbs  he  saw  it  and  was  glad 
points  to  something  accomplished  in  a  definite 
past  time.    The  interpretation  which  the  Jews 


200 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  VIII. 


57  Then  said  the  Jews  unto  him,  Thou  art  not  yet 
fifty  years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham? 

58  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  Belore  Abraham  was,  "  I  am. 

59  Then  ''took  they  up  stones  to  east  at  him:  but 
Jesus  hid  himself,  aud  weut  out  of  the  temple,  "'going 
through  the  midst  of  them,  and  so  passed  by. 


57  glad.    The  Jews  therefore  said  unto  him,  Thou  art 
not  yet  fifty  years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abra- 

58  ham?     Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you.  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  am.    They 

59  took  up  stones  therefore  to  cast  at  him :  but  Jesus 
1  hid  himself,  and  went  out  of  the  temple  K 


oEx.  3:  U;  Isa.  43 :  13  ;  oli.  17  :  5,  24;  Col.  1 :  17  ;  Rev.  l:8....6ch.  10:  31,  39;  11:  8....C  Luke  4:  30. 1  Or,  was  hidden,  and  went, 

etc 2  Many  ancient  authorities  add,  and  going  through  the  midst  of  them  went  his  way,  and  bo  passed  by. 


gave  to  his  words  (ver.  57)  implies  the  same 
thing;  and  the  response  of  Jesus  to  their  lan- 
guage (ver.  58)  justifies  tliis  view.  This  pas- 
sage may  therefore  be  relied  on  to  prove  the 
pre-existence  of  Christ  in  his  higher  nature, 
and  the  fact  of  salvation  by  him  in  the  time 
of  Abraham.  The  promise  antedates  the  law 
of  Moses;  Christianity  is  older  than  Judaism. 
(Gal. 3:15,  sq.)  The  work  of  Christ  as  Mediator 
began  immediately  after  the  fall.  The  bloody 
sacrifices  typified  the  Lamb  of  God.  The 
promises  led  to  faith  in  a  coming  Messiah. 
Mercy  was  shown  in  anticipation  of  his  aton- 
ing death.  And  Abraham  saw  the  dawning 
of  the  day  of  Christ. 

57.  Then  said  the  Jews  unto  him. 
Therefore  instead  of  then,  because  their 
words  were  occasioned  by  his  last  statement, 
and  rested  on  a  certain  intepretation  of  it. 
Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old.  Some 
have  inferred  from  this  remark  that  Jesus 
must  have  been  more  than  thirty-three  3'ears 
old  at  this  time.  But  there  was  no  occasion 
for  exactness  in  their  reference  to  his  age.  It 
was  enough  for  them  to  say  :  "Thou  art  still 
a  young  man  :  thou  hast  not  reached  the  me- 
ridian of  life,  the  age  when  men  begin  to  lay 
aside  their  heavj' tasks."  (Num.  i:.-!,  39;  8: 24.)  And 
hast  thou  seen  Abraham?  Though  in  the 
form  of  a  question,  these  words  were  meant 
to  be  a  positive  rejection  of  his  statement. 
They  were  an  avowal  of  disbelief,  not  of 
doubt.  But  they  prepared  the  way  for  one  of 
the  clearest  and  most  remarkable  declarations 
of  Jesus  in  respect  to  himself. 

58.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you:  Be- 
fore Abraham  Avas,  I  am.  This  verse  is 
much  more  exact  and  forcible  in  the  Greek 
original  than  in  the  translation.  For  the  verb 
which  is  used  of  Abraham,  is  not  the  same  as 
the  one  which  is  used  of  Christ.  The  former 
signifies  an  existence  which  has  an  origin, 
and  might  be  rendered  in  this  case,  came  to 
be;  the  latter  denotes  existence  simply  and 


absolutely,  without  any  reference  to  origin. 
It  is  called  by  some,  as  here  used,  the  timeless 
present;  and  by  it  Jesus  claims  for  himself 
the  same  eternal,  unsuccessive,  absolute  be- 
ing, which  was  claimed  by  Jehovah,  when  he 
said  to  Moses:  "I  am  that  I  am."  The  reader 
is  therefore  to  observe,  (1)  the  repeated  verily, 
which  calls  attention  to  the  great  importance 
of  what  is  said ;  (2)  the  difference  between  the 
moaning  of  the  verb  translated  was  ;  and  the 
meaning  of  the  verb  translated  am;  and  (3) 
the  tense  of  the  latter  verb,  which  suggests 
the  idea  of  existence  independent  of  time. 
(Compare,  also,  1:  1-18:  6:  62;  17:  5;  Col. 
1:  17;  Heb.  1:  2;  1  John  1:  2.) 

59.  Then  {therefore)  took  they  up 
stones  to  cast  at  him.  To  the  Jews,  this 
last  declaration  of  Jesus  appeared  blasphe- 
mous; and  so,  in  their  furious  zeal,  they  laid 
hold  of  such  stones  as  happened  to  be  within 
their  reach,  in  the  court  of  the  temple,  where 
they  were,  that  they  might  hurl  them  upon 
him,  and  kill  him  on  the  spot.  (Compare  10:  31 ; 
and  Josephus  "Ant.,"  17:  9,  3.)  But  Jesus 
hid  himself.  Whether  by  miracle,  or  not,  the 
Evangelist  fails  to  say.  It  is  possible  that,  at 
the  moment  when  his  infuriated  enemies 
stooped  with  one  impulse  of  wrath  to  seek  for 
stones,  which  lay  scattered  about,  or  rushed 
to  some  part  of  the  court  where  fragments  of 
building-stone  were  accumulated,  he  passed 
quietly  but  quickly  into  the  crowd,  and  out 
of  sight;  for  there  were,  doubtless,  many  of 
his  friends  in  the  crowd.  Yet,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  equalh'  possible  that  his  divine 
power  was  exercised  on  this  occasion  to  ren- 
der himself,  for  the  moment,  invisible.  And 
went  out  of  the  temple.  The  word  here 
translated  temple,  means  the  whole  sacred 
inclosure,  with  its  courts  open  above,  and  ac- 
cessible to  the  people;  and  not  the  temple 
proper,  which  the  common  people  never  en- 
tered. (See  "Temple,"  in  Smith's  "Diet,  of 
the  Bible.") 


Ch.  IX.] 


JOHN. 


201 


CHAPTEK    IX. 


AND  as  Jesus  passed  by,  he  saw  a  man  which  was 
bliud  from  hU  birth. 

2  And  his  disciples  aslced  him,  saying,  Master,  "  who 
did  sin,  this  man,  or  his  jiarents,  that  he  was  born 
blind? 

3  Jesus  answered.  Neither  hath  this  man  sinned,  nor 
his  parents  :  '  but  that  the  works  of  Uod  should  be  made 
manifest  in  him. 


1  And  as  he  passed  by,  he  saw  a  blind  man  from  his 

2  birth.     And  his  disciples  asked  him,  saying,  Kabbi. 
who  did  sin,  this  man,  or  his  parents,  thai  he  should 

3  be  born  blind?     Jesus  answered.  Neither  did  this 
man  sin,  nor  his  parents :  but  that  tke  works  of  God 


r.  34....6ch.  U:  4. 


Ch.  9:  1-7.  Healing  of  a  Man  Blind 
FROM  Birth. 

1.  And  as  Jesus  (he)  passed  by,  he  saw 
a  man  which  was  blind  from  his  birth. 

According  to  critical  evidence  the  last  clause 
of  (8:  59j  as  given  ill  the  Textus  Receptus,  viz. : 
"going  through  the  midst  of  them,  and  thus 
passed  by  " — did  not  belong  to  the  autograph 
of  John.  Hence  there  is  no  reason  to  assume 
that  the  events  narrated  in  this  chapter  took 
place  immediately  after  those  recounted  in 
the  foregoing  chapter.  And  it  does  seem 
improbable  that  the  disciples  would  have 
thought  of  such  a  question  as  that  in  verse 
second,  just  after  their  Master  had  escaped 
the  violence  of  the  infuriated  Jews.  It  is 
better,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  the  giving 
of  sight  to  the  blind  man  occurred  some  days, 
or  at  least  hours  later,  when  the  excitement 
produced  by  the  scene  in  the  temple  had 
passed  from  the  minds  of  the  disciples.  The 
narrative  furnislies  no  information  concern- 
ing the  part  of  the  city  in  which  the  blind 
man  was,  when  seen  by  Jesus.  He  may  have 
been  near  the  temple,  and  so  not  very  far 
from  the  Pool  of  Siloam;  but  this  is  only  a 
conjecture.  The  word  saw  appears  to  denote 
an  earnest  looking  at  the  blind  beggar — so 
earnest  as  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  dis- 
ciples, and  lead  them  to  propose  the  follow- 
ing question : 

2.  Master  (Rabbi,)  who  did  sin,  this 
man,  or  his  parents,  that  he  was  (should 
be)  born  blind?  It  may  be  that  the  disciples 
had  seen  this  man  or  his  friends  before,  and 
had  thus  learned  that  his  blindness  was  con- 
genital; or,  it  may  be,  that  he  mentioned  this 
fact  in  his  plea  for  alms,  as  they  were  passing 
by.  At  all  events,  the  disciples  knew  that  he 
had  been  born  blind,  and  they  were  perplexed 
in  attempting  to  account  to  their  own  reason 
for  such  a  calainity.  Sharing  with  others  the 
opinion  that  all  misfortune  is  due  to  sin,  and 
that  special  misfortune  must  be  the  penalty 


of  some  special  sin,  they  ask  for  an  explana- 
tion of  the  present  case,  ment.ouing  tlie  only 
alternatives  which  at  the  moment  occurred  to 
them  as  possible.  That  they  thouglit  of  the 
pre-existence,  or  transmigration,  of  souls,  is 
not  very  probable.  That  they  believed  it  pos- 
sible for  a  child  to  sin  before  its  birth,  need 
not  be  assumed.  They  were  perplexed,  and 
presented  the  only  alternative  that  entered 
their  minds,  asking  for  light  from  One  who 
had  claimed  to  be  "the  Light  of  the  world," 
and  in  whose  word  they  had  full  confidence. 
They  were,  no  doubt,  familiar  with  Ex.  20:  5, 
and  simiiar  passages,  which  speak  of  the  great 
and  terrible  law  of  sinful  and  penal  heredity, 
and  they  knew,  perhaps,  that  some  of  their 
teachers  believed  in  the  theory  of  ante-natal 
sinning;  but  as  these  doctrines  were,  both  of 
them,  very  perplexing  to  human  reason,  they 
desired  to  know  which  of  these,  if  either,  was 
true.  Perhaps  they  were  not  without  some 
hope  that  Jesus  would  offer  them  a  better  ex- 
planation than  either  of  them,  though  their 
question  does  not  imply  this.  (For  the  use  of 
that  (iW),  see  Buttmann's  "Gram,  of  N.  T. 
Greek,"  Thayer's  Transl.  p  239.  "It  des- 
ignates the  internal  causal  connection,  or- 
dained by  a  higher  power,  between  sin  and 
malady.") 

3.  Neither  hath  this  man  sinned,  (rather, 
did  this  man  sin,)  nor  his  parents  ;  viz.  :  to 
the  end  that  he  should  be  born  blind.  For 
Jesus  manifestlj'  did  not  intend  to  say,  with- 
out qualification,  that  this  man  and  his  par- 
ents were  sinless;  but  only  that  no  special  sin 
of  his  own,  or  of  his  parents,  was  with  God 
Civa)  the  reason  why  he  should  be  born  blind. 
(Compare  Notes  on  Luke  13:  1-5.)  In  the  Old 
Testament,  the  Book  of  Job  teaches  the  same 
doctrine  as  this  answer  of  Jesus.  But  that 
the  works  of  God  should  be  made  mani- 
fest in  him.  The  works  of  God  are  the 
works  which  he  performs;  and  the  condition 
of  this  blind  man  was  a  fit  occasion  for  show- 


202 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IX. 


4  «  I  must  work  the  works  of  him  that  sent  me,  while 
it  is  day:  the  uight  cometh,  when  uo  man  can  work. 

5  As  long  as  I  am  in  the  world, '  1  am  the  light  ol'  the 
world. 

G  When  he  had  thus  spoken,  "'he spat  on  the  ground, 
and  made  clay  of  the  spittle,  and  he  anointed  the  eyes 
of  the  blind  man  with  the  clay. 


4  should  be  made  manifest  in  him.  We  must  work 
the  works  of  him  that  sent  me,  while  it  is  day:  the 

5  night  cometh,  when  uo  man  can  work.    When  I  ;im 

6  in  the  world,  1  am  the  light  of  the  world.  When  he 
had  thus  spoken,  he  spat  on  the  ground,  aud  made 
clay  of  the  spittle,  i  aud  anointed  his  eyes  with  the 


a  ch.  4:  34;  5:  19,  36;  11:  9 


12:36;  17:  4.... 6  ch.  1 :  5,  9  ;  3:  19;  8:  12;  12 :  35.  46. 
thereof  anointed  his  eyes. 


..c  Mark  7:  33;  8:23. 1  Or.  and  with  the  clay 


ing  to  the  world  a  specimen  of  his  works ;  for 
manifesting  openlj'  the  Icind  of  deeds  he  is 
able  and  willing  to  do.  And  it  was  according 
to  the  holy  purpose  of  God  that  this  very  man 
was  born  blind,  that  he  lived  at  this  precise 
time  in  Jerusalem,  that  he  attracted  the  at- 
tention of  Jesus  at  this  particular  moment, 
and  that  he  should  be  a  bold  and  grateful 
recipient  of  sight  from  the  Lord.  Doubtless, 
he  was  ever  after  thankful  to  God  for  his 
long  blindness,  since  it  was  to  be  so  graciously 
and  wondrously  removed.  Born  of  a  sinful 
race,  and  himself  a  sinful  man,  he  was  not 
wronged  by  being  born  blind.  He  had  re- 
ceived in  his  darkness  far  more  of  good  than  he 
had  deserved.  And  now  it  appeared  that 
God  had  turned  misfortune  into  a  blessing- 
giving  him  sight  in  such  a  way  as  to  save,  at 
the  same  time,  his  soul.  All  this  was  far 
from'  accidental.  It  was  embraced  in  the  plan 
and  will  of  God,  which  Jesus  had  come  into 
the  world  to  fulfill. 

4.  I  (or,  i/vi)  must  work  the  works  of 
him  that  sent  me,  while  it  is  day.  The 
term  day  is  here  used  figuratively,  to  denote 
life  as  the  period  in  which  Christ  was  to  do 


[1  This  is  an  interesting  example  of  various  readings, 
though  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  which  gives  the  true 
text.  (1)  "We  must  work  the  works  of  him  that  sent 
nie,"  is  given  by  b  d,  Thebaic,  Syriac  of  Jerusalem.  (2) 
"We  must  work  the  works  of  him  that  sent  us,"  by  X 
(first  hand)  l,  Memphitic,  .Ethiopic  (one  edition),  and 
Cyril  of  Alexandria.  (3)  "I  must  work  the  works 
of  him  that  sent  me,"  by  all  other  documents.  Now  it 
is  plain  that  no  one  would  ever  have  wished  to  change 
(3)  into  either  of  the  others,  as  its  sense  is  obvious,  and 
it  presents  nothing  ol>ject  ion  able  to  any  class  of  read- 
ers. But  (1)  accounts  for  both  the  other  readings.  The 
apparent  incongruity  between  "we"  and  "me,"  in- 
duced the  ".\lexandrian  "  to  change  to  "  we  "  and  "  us," 
and  the  "  Syrian  "  to  change  to  "  I "  and  "  me."  And 
the  incongruity  is,  in  fact,  only  superficial.  That  Jesus 
should  associate  his  followers  with  him  in  accomplishing 
the  objects  of  his  mission,  is  a  profound  and  impressive 
thought,  and  in  harmony  with  the  general  spirit  of  his 
teachings.  Thus,  transcriptional  and  intrinsic  evi- 
dence tend  to  the  same  result.  Notice  that  b  and  d 
liere  share  the  honor  of  giving  the  true  text.— b.] 


certain  works — works  of  God — and  works  that, 
according  to  the  plan  of  God,  must  be  termi- 
nated by  his  death  on  the  cross.  These  works 
were  inexpressibly  important  for  the  disci- 
ples themselves,  and  for  the  world  that  was  to 
be  enlightened  by  their  ministry.  The  night 
cometh  when  no  man  can  work.  That  is 
to  say,  for  every  one  ;  and  so  for  me,  the  night 
of  death  cometh,  when  no  one  can  do  the  work 
of  this  life. 

5.  As  long  as  (rather,  when)  I  am  in  the 
world,  I  am  the  light  of  the  world.  "My 
being  in  the  world,  and  my  being  the  light  of 
the  world,  are  contemporaneous  and  insepa- 
rable." It  can  scarcely'  be  doubted  that  the 
Saviour  here  designates  himself,  as  in  8:  12, 
the  Light  of  the  world,  because  he  Avas  in  the 
highest  and  most  comprehensive  sense  the 
Revealer  of  tiie  Father.  The  natural,  and 
especially  the  moral  perfections  of  God,  were 
manifested  bj^  him  in  the  clearest  manner. 
Every  miracle  that  he  wrought,  every  word 
that  he  spoke,  every  scoff  that  he  bore,  every 
wrong  that  he  forgave,  was  a  r«y  of  light 
from  the  unseen  God,  revealing  his  nature  to 
men. 

6.  He  spat  on  the  ground,  etc.  Tlie  de- 
tails here  given  are  simple,  precise,  unex- 
plained, just  as  they  might  naturally  be  if 
coming  from  the  pen  of  an  attentive  but  rev- 
erential eye-\vitn!'ss.  If  we  ask,  Why  this 
process?  Why  did  the  Lord  in  this  instance 
transmit  his  restorative  energy  through  a 
physical  medium?  or,  at  least,  give  the  peo- 
ple occasion  to  suppose  that  he  did  so?  It  is 
difficult  to  answer.  Of  this,  however,  we  may 
be  confident,  that  neither  the  Jews,  nor  any 
thoughtful  reader  of  this  narrative,  will  imag- 
ine that  the  healing  virtue  was  inherent  in  the 
material  clay,  in  the  spittle,  or  in  both  these, 
united.  It  was  not  by  the  efficacy  of  medi- 
cine that  this  congenital  blindness  was  re- 
moved. Jesus  selected  such  means,  or  per- 
haps symbols,  as  could  be  proved,  by  a  thou- 
sand experiments,  to  be  incapable  of  producing 
the  eflect  which  was  then  wrought.     It  is  pos- 


Ch.  IX.] 


JOHN. 


203 


7  And  said  unto  him,  Go,  wash  "in  the  pool  of  Si- 
loam,  (wliich  is  hy  iuterpretatiou.  Sent.)  *  lie  went 
his  way  therelore,  and  washed,  and  came  seeing. 


7  dav,  and  said  unio  him,  lio,  wasli  in  the  pool  of 
Siloam  (which  is  by  iuterpretatiou,  Seut).     lie  went 


(Neb.  3:  15....ft  See2  Kings  b:  14. 


sible  that  he  resorted  to  the  process  described,  |  attained  by  the  power  of  God.     According  to 
in  order  to  prove,  or  to  strengthen,  or  to  man-  I  the  best  accredited  text,  the  pronoun  hin  sliould 


POOL  OF  SILOAM. 


ifest  the  faith  of  the  blind  man.  It  is,  per- 
haps, possible,  though  we  have  no  reason  to 
think  it,  in  the  least  degree,  probable— that 
the  moist  clay  softened  the  coating  of  the 
eyes,  and,  in  a  certain  measure,  prepared 
them  for  the  miracle ;  for  natural  means  may 
be  employed  and  honored,  even  though  they  go 
but  a  little  way  towards  the  effect  which  is  to  be 


be  inserted,  and  the  words,  of  the  blind 
man,  dropped.  This  change  does  not  affect 
the  meaning  of  the  verse. 

7.  Go,  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam 
(Avhich  is  by  interpretation,  Sent.)  A 
more  literal  rendering  would  be,  Go,  wash 
into  the  pool  of  Siloam;  meaning,  as  many 
have  thought,   "Go  into  the  pool  of  Siloam 


204 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IX. 


8  The  neighbours  therefore,  and  they  which  before 
had  seen  hiui  that  he  was  blind,  said,  Is  not  this  he 
that  sat  and  begged? 

y  Some  said,  This  is  he:  others  said.  He  is  like  him: 
but  he  said,  I  am  ke. 


8  away  therefore,  and  washed,  and  came  seeing.  The 
neighbours  therefore,  and  they  who  saw  him  afore- 
time, that  he  was  a  beggar,  said.  Is  not  this  he  that 

9  sat  and  begged  ?    Others  said,  It  is  he :  others  said. 


and  wash,"  or,  as  others  have  supposed,  "Go, 
wash  (the  clay  from  thine  eyes)  into  the  pool," 
etc.  In  either  case  the  expression  is  pregnant, 
and  something  must  he  supplied  in  thought  to 
complete  the  sense.  The  latter  view  is  ingeni- 
ous, and  perhaps  preferable  to  the  former. 

"The  name  Siloah,  or  Siloam,  which  has 
obtained  such  celebrity  in  the  Christian  world, 
is  found  only  three  times  in  the  Scriptures,  as 
applied  to  waters:  once  in  the  prophet  Isaiah, 
who  speaks  of  it  as  running  water  (isa. 8:6)  ; 
again,  as  a  pool,  in  Nehemiah  (3:id);  and, 
lastly,  also  as  a  pool,  in  the  account  of  our 
Lord's  miracle  of  healing  the  man  who  had 
been  born  blind.  (John9:7,  u.)  None  of  these 
passages  afford  any  clue  as  to  the  situation  of 
Siloam.  But  this  silence  is  amply  supplied 
by  the  historian  Josephus,  who  makes  fre- 
quent mention  of  Siloam  as  a  fountain,  and 
says  expressly,  that  the  valley  of  the  Tyro- 
pceon  extended  down  to  Siloam  ;  or,  in  other 
words,  Siloam  was  situated  in  the  mouth  of 
the  Tyropoeon,  on  the  southeast  part  of  the 
ancient  citj',  as  we  find  it  at  the  present  day. 
Its  waters,  he  says,  were  sweet  and  abundant. 
There  can  also  be  no  room  for  doubt  that  the 
Siloam  of  Josephus  is  identical  with  that  of 
the  Scriptures."  It  is  "a  small,  deep  reser- 
voir in  the  mouth  of  the  Tyropoeon,  into  which 
the  water  flows  from  a  smaller  basin  excavated 
in  the  solid  rock  a  few  feet  higher  up ;  and 
then  the  little  channel  by  which  the  stream  is 
led  oft'  along  the  base  of  the  steep,  rocky  point 
of  Ophel,  to  irrigate  the  terraces  and  gardens 
extending  into  the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat  be- 
low. The  distance  from  the  eastern  point  of 
Ophel  nearest  this  latter  valley  to  the  said 
reservoir,  is  255  feet.  The  reservoir  is  53  feet 
long,  18  feet  broad,  and  19  feet  deep ;  but  the 
western  end  is  in  part  broken  down.  Several 
columns  are  built  into  the  side  walls,  perhaps 
belonging  to  a  former  chapel,  or  intended  to 
support  a  roof;  but  there  is  now  no  other  ap- 
pearance of  important  ruins  in  the  vicinity. 
No  water  was  standing  in  the  reservoir  as  we 
saw  it;  the  stream  from  the  fountain  only 
passed  through,  and  flowed  off  to  the  gar- 
dens." ("RobinFon's  Researches,"  I.,  335-6.) 
When  Dr.  Hackett  saw  it,  in  the  spring  of 


1852,  "it  contained  two  feet  of  water."  Bar- 
clay gives  a  more  minute  measurement,  "four- 
teen and  a  half  at  the  lower  (eastern)  end,  and 
seventeen  at  the  upper;  its  western  end  being 
somewhat  bent;  it  is  eighteen  and  a  half  in 
depth,  but  never  filled,  the  water  either  pass- 
ing directh'  through,  or  being  maintained  at 
a  depth  of  three  or  four  feet ;  this  is  effected 
by  leaving  open  or  closing  ...  an  aperture  at 
the  bottom."  (Smith's  "Diet,  of  the  Bible," 
Art.  Siloam.) 

John  gives  to  his  readers  an  interpretation 
of  the  name  Siloam,  probably  because  he 
wished  to  associate  it  with  tlie  Sent  of  God, 
the  Saviour,  by  whom  in  reality  the  blind 
man  was  healed. 

What  a  new  world  was  revealed  to  the  blind 
man  as  he  returned  seeing  !  With  what  lively 
interest  and  wonder  must  he  have  looked  for 
the  first  time  upon  the  mountains  round  about 
Jerusalem,  the  sky,  the  sun,  and  the  number- 
less objects  that  encircled  him  on  every  side, 
as  he  returned  into  the  city,  to  his  home  and 
friends!  For  there  is  no  evidence  that  Jesus 
tarried  at  the  place  where  he  saw  the  blind 
man,  or  that  the  man  sought  him  on  his  re- 
turn. 

8-12.  Reception  by  His  Neighbors. 

8.  The  neighbours  therefore,  etc.  The 
Rev.  Ver.  represents  the  true  text:  The  7ieigh- 
bors  therefore,  and  they  which  saw  him  afore- 
time, that  he  was  a.  beggar,  etc.  It  is  certainly 
noticeable,  and  not  a  little  remarkable,  that, 
according  to  the  true  text,  the  neighbors  de- 
scribed the  man,  not  as  blind,  or,  "blind 
from  his  birth,"  but  as  he  that  "was  accus- 
tomed to  sit  and  beg."  Hence,  as  Alford  re- 
marks, "the  reading  blind  Wixs,  most  likelj', 
a  correction  of  some  one  who  thought  beggar 
did  not  express  plainly  enough  the  change  in 
him."  For  the  same  reason,  a  fa/sarius  of  the 
second  century,  intent  on  glorifying  the  di- 
vine power  of  Jesus,  would  surely  have  made 
them  speak  of  him  as  blind,  rather  than  as  beg- 
ging. Yet  the  narrative  is  manifestly  true  to 
nature.  For  the  begging  was  quite  as  obtru- 
sive a  circumstance  to  these  neighbors  as  the 
blindness. 

9.  Some    said.    This    is    he,  etc.      This 


Ch.  IX.] 


JOHN. 


205 


10  Therefore  said  they  unto  him,  How  were  thine 
eyes  opened  ' 

11  He  answered  and  said,  "A  man  that  is  called  Jesus 
made  clay,  and  anointed  mine  eyes,  and  said  unto  me. 
Go  to  the  pool  of  iSiloam,  and  wash:  and  1  went  and 
washed,  and  I  received  sight. 

12  Then  said  they  unto  him,  Where  is  he?  He  said, 
1  know  not. 

13  They  brought  to  the  Pharisees  him  that  aforetime 
was  blind. 

14  And  it  was  the  sabbath  day  when  Jesus  made  the 
clay,  and  opened  his  eyes. 

15  Then  again  the  Pharisees  al.so  aslced  him  how  he 
had  received  his  sight.  He  said  unto  them,  He  put 
clay  upon  mine  eyes,  and  I  washed,  and  do  see. 


10  No,  but  he  is  like  him.  He  said,  I  am  he.  They  said 
therefore    unto    him.    How  then    were  thine  eyes 

11  opened  ?  He  answered.  The  man  tliat  is  called  Jesus 
made  clay,  and  anointed  mine  eyes,  and  said  unto 
me,  Go  to  Siloani,  and  wash :    so  I   went  away  and 

12  washed,  and  I  received  sight.  And  they  said  unto 
him.  Where  is  he?    He  saith,  I  know  not. 

13  They  bring  to  the  Pharisees   him  that  aforetime 

14  was  blind.  Now  it  was  the  sabbath  on  the  day 
when   Jesus  made  the  clay,  and   opened    his   eyes. 

15  Again  therefore  the  Pharisees  also  asked  him  liow 
he  received  his  sight.  And  he  said  unto  them.  He 
put  clay  upon  mine  eyes,  and  1  washed,  and  do  see. 


may  be  liteniUy  rendered:  Others  said:  This 
is  he ;  others,  No,  but  he  is  like  him ;  but 
he  said :  I  am  he.  Observe  the  rapidity 
and  naturalness  of  the  recital.  The  look  and 
bearing  of  the  man  may  have  been  somewhat 
changed  bj'  the  new  and  glorious  power  of 
vision,  so  that  there  was,  perhaps,  some  little 
reason  for  the  answer — He  is  like  him,  es- 
pecially on  the  part  of  Jews,  who  could 
not  easily  believe  that  so  stupendous  a  miracle 
had  been  wrought  almost  before  their  eyes. 

10.  Naturally,  they  answer  the  man  him- 
self by  the  question  :  How  were  thine  eyes 
opened?  In  other  words:  "How  were  they 
made  to  see?"  For  the  language  is  figura- 
tive, and,  as  usual,  all  the  more  expressive 
and  beautiful  for  being  so.  Ordinarily'  it  is 
the  closed  eye  that  does  not  see,  and  the  open 
eye  that  sees.  Hence  to  open  blind  eyes  is 
the  same  thing  as  to  cause  them  to  see. 

11.  He  answered  and  said,  etc.  (Or,  he 
answered :  The  man  that  is  called  Jesus, 
m.ade  clay,  and  anointed  mine  eyes,  and 
said  unto  me :  Go  to  Siloam,  and  vjash  : 
So  I  went  and  washed,  and  I  received 
sight.)  This  is  a  translation  of  the  best 
supported  text.  It  will  be  observed  that 
it  differs  from  the  Common  Version  by  omit- 
ting and  said  after  answered,  by  substituting 
the  for  a.  before  m,an,  by  omitting  the  words 
the 2^001  of  before  Siloam,,  and  by  substituting 
so  for  and,  in  the  last  sentence.  But  none  of 
these  changes  affect  the  substance  of  thought 
in  the  verse.  Whether  the  blind  man,  now 
restored  to  sight,  spoke  of  Christ  as  a  man  that 
is  called  Jesus,  or,  as  the  man  called  Jesus, 
would  only  differ  in  this,  that  the  latter  form 
of  expression  would  imply  some  previous 
knowledge  concerning  Jesus  in  the  speaker 
and  those  addressed,  while  the  former  would 
not. 

12.  Then  said  they  unto  him :   Where  i 


is  he?  He  said:  I  know  not.  The 
omission  of  then  at  the  beginning  of  this 
verse  is  required  by  critical  authorities,  but 
does  not  change  the  meaning. 

13-17.  First  Examination  of  the  Ke- 
STORED  Man  by  the  Pharisees. 

13.  They  brought  (rather,  bring)  to  the 
Pharisees  him  that  aforetime  was  blind. 
The  general  brevity  of  the  Gospel  narrative 
forbids  one  to  assume  that  this  was  done 
before  the  close  of  the  day  on  which  the 
miracle  was  wrought.  It  may  have  been  done 
on  the  next  day  as  well,  and  from  what  fol- 
lows it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  Sabbath 
was  already  past.  Hence  the  fact  that  the 
Sanhedrin  was  not  accustomed  to  meet  on  the 
Sabbath,  fails  to  prove  that  the  man  who  had 
been  made  to  see  was  not  brought  before  that 
court.  But,  if  the  Sanhedrin  is  meant,  it 
must  have  been  so  referred  to  by  the  Evan- 
gelist, because,  in  this  instance,  the  most 
active  and  influential  members  of  it  were 
Pharisees.  Yet  there  is  no  real  necessity  for 
the  assumption  that  the  examination  was 
made  by  the  Sanhedrin.  The  Pharisees, 
probably,  had  an  association  of  their  own  in 
Jerusalem,  whose  action  determined  their 
course  in  the  Sanhedrin,  and,  therefore,  prac- 
tically, the  decisions  of  that  body.  To  this 
association  of  leading  Pharisees  the  man  that 
was  blind  may  have  been  brought  by  those 
who  doubted,  or  wished  to  doubt,  the  miracle. 
For  it  was  probably  this  part  of  his  neighbors 
that  brought  him  to  the  Pharisees. 

14.  Audit  was  the  (a)  Sabbath,  etc.  This 
remark  anticipates  the  scene  that  follows. 
Jesus  had  done  work — had  made  the  clay, 
and  spread  it  on  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man,  on 
the  Sabbath  ;  and  this  was  regarded  by  the 
Pharisees  as  a  violation  of  the  law  of  rest  on 
that  day.     (See  Note  on  5 :  10. ) 

15.  Then  (or,)  again,  etc.  The  word  a^^ai?! 


206 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IX. 


16  Therefore  said  some  of  the  Pharisees,  This  man  is 
not  of  (iod,  because  he  keepeth  not  the  sabbath  day. 
Others  said,  "  How  can  a  man  that  is  a  sinner  do  such 
miracles  ?    And  *  there  was  a  division  among  them. 

17  Thev  say  unto  the  blind  man  again.  What  sayest 
thou  ol  him,  that  he  hath  opened  thine  eyes?  He  said, 
"He  is  a  prophet. 

13  "But  the  Jews  did  not  believe  concerning  him,  that 
he  had  been  blind,  and  received  his  sight,  until  they 
called  the  parents  of  him  that  had  received  his  sight. 

19  And  they  asked  them,  saying.  Is  this  your  son, 
■who  ye  say  was  born  blind?  how  then  doth  he  now 
see? 


16  Some  therefore  of  the  Pharisees  said,  This  man  is 
not  from  God,  because  he  keepeth  not  the  sabbath. 
But  others  said.  How  can  a  man  that  is  a  sinner  do 
such  signs?    And  there  was  a  division  among  them. 

17  They  say  therefore  unto  the  blind  man  again.  What 
sayest  thou  of  him,  in  that  he  opened  thine  eyes? 

18  And  he  said.  He  is  a  projihet.  'the  Jews  therefore 
did   not  believe  concerning  him,  that  he  had  been 

19  blind,  and  had  received  his  sight,  until  they  called 
the  parents  of  him  that  had  received  his  sight,  and 
asked  them,  saying.  Is  this  j-our   son,  who  ye  say 


a  ver.  33  ;  ch.  3  :  2. . .  .i  ch.  7  :  12,  43  ;  10 :  19. . .  .0  ch.  4  :  19 ;  6 :  li. 


assumes  correctly  that  the  same  question  had 
been  asked  before,  though  not  by  the  same 
persons,  (ver.  lo.)  He  said  unto  them,  He 
put  clay  upon  mine  eyes,  and  I  washed, 
and  do  see.  A  briefer  answer  than  the  one 
made  to  his  neighbors  (ver.  u),  perhaps  because 
he  saw  the  purpose  of  his  questioners,  and  there- 
fore chose  to  use  as  few  words  as  possible. 
For  in  all  that  follows,  he  proves  himself  to 
be  a  clear-headed  and  true-hearted  man. 

16.  Therefore  said  (or,  were  saying) 
some  of  the  Pharisees,  This  man  is  not 
oi(from)  GotI,  because  he  keepeth  not  the 
sabbath  day.  From  his  disregard  of  the  Sab- 
bath law,  as  interpreted  by  the  scribes,  they 
infer  that  he  must  be  a  sinner,  and  not  a  mes- 
senger from  God.  But  their  premise  was 
false,  and  their  conclusion  equally  so.  Others 
said,  (or,  were  saying),  How  can  a  man  that 
is  a  sinner  do  such  miracles?  (or,  signs.) 
From  the  miracle  which  he  had  wrought, 
these  infer  the  impossibility  of  his  being  a 
transgressor  of  the  law.  "To  press  the  Sab- 
bath-breaking, was  to  admit  the  miracle  ;  and 
to  admit  the  miracle,  was  to  establish  the  fact 
that  he  who  performed  it  could  not  be  the 
criminal  whom  the  others  described."  (Far- 
rar,  "The  Life  of  Christ.")  Andtherewasa 
division  among  them.  If  this  examination 
was  made  by  the  Sanhedrin,  there  were  many 
besides  Nicodemus  in  that  court  who  reasoned 
soundly  respecting  Jesus.  (8:2.) 

17.  They  say  unto  the  blind  man 
again :  What  sayest  thou  of  him  that  he 
hath  opened  thine  eyes  I  Thoii  is  emphatic. 
"  We  make  our  appeal  to  fAee."  This  ques- 
tion may  be  regarded  as  coming  from  both 
parties.  Divided  among  themselves,  the  Phar- 
isees turn  to  the  man  whose  sight  had  been 
restored,  in  order  to  learn  his  opinion— a  ma- 
jority of  them  certainly  hoping  to  find  in  it 
something  which  they  could  use  against  Jesus. 
Andy  he  said,  He  is  a  prophet.    A  very 


clear,  sensible,  and  decided  answer.  If  any 
of  the  dominant  party  supposed  that,  having 
heard  their  words  (i6:a),  and  seen  their  hos- 
tility to  Christ,  he  would  hesitate  about  avow- 
ing his  trust  in  Jesus  as  a  ines.senger  from' 
God,  they  were  quickly  undeceived.  The 
man  with  whom  they  now  had  to  deal  was  a 
different  person  from  the  one  who  had  waited 
at  the  Pool  of  Bethesda.  (See  5:  10-15.)  This 
man  was  shrewd  and  firm;  that  man,  appar- 
ently', weak  and  simple. 

18-23.  Examination  of  the  Blind 
Man's  Parents. 

18.  But  the  Jews  (therefore)  did  not  be- 
lieve concerning  him,  that  he  had  been 
blind,  and  received  his  sight,  until  they 
called  the  parents  of  him  that  had  re- 
ceived his  sight.  But,  and  his,  in  two 
places,  are  wanting  in  the  original,  and  need- 
less in  English.  Therefore  is  inserted  because 
the  true  text  requires  it.  Observe  (1)  chat  the 
persons  spoken  of  are  called  the  Jews,  mean- 
ing that  part  of  the  Pharisees  most  hostile  to 
Jesus.  (2)  That  their  unbelief  is  voluntary ; 
for  it  varies  in  form  with  the  supposed  neces- 
sities of  their  cause.  The  man  is  firm,  and 
avows  his  confidence  in  Jesus  as  a  prophet; 
therefore,  they  do  not  believe  that  he  was  once 
blind,  and  has  been  made  to  see.  (3)  That  their 
unbelief  onlj'  yielded  when  it  must ;  that  is, 
when  the  positive  testiinonj'of  the  blind  man's 
parents  took  from  them  every  pretext  or  ex- 
cuse for  doubt.  A  large  part  of  the  unbelief 
of  mankind  is  voluntary.  As  long  as  they 
can  find  any  plausible  excuse  for  distrusting 
the  word  of  God,  they  will  reject  it  as  un- 
worthy of  confidence. 

19.  Is  this  your  son,  who  ye  say  was 
born  blind?  how  then  doth  he  now  see? 
In  other  words,  (1)  Is  this  your  son?  (2) 
Was  he  born  blind?  (3)  How  then  doth  he 
now  see?  These  questions  were  appropriate, 
if  there  was  any  need  of  asking  them  ;  but 


Ch.  IX.] 


JOHN. 


207 


20  His  parents  answered  them  and  said,  We  know 
that  this  is  our  son,  imd  tluit  he  was  l)oni  blind  : 

21  But  l>y  what  means  he  now  seelh,  we  know  not; 
or  who  hath  opened  his  eyes,  we  know  not:  he  is  of 
age;  ask  him:  he  shall  speak  for  himself. 

22  These  uvrdts  spake  his  parents,  because  "they 
feared  the  Jews  :  for  the  Jews  had  agreed  alre;uly,  that 
if  any  man  did  confess  that  he  was  Christ,  he  ''should 
be  put  out  of  the  synagogue. 


20  was  born  blind?  how  then  doth  he  now  see?     His 

21  parents  answered  and  said.  We  know  that  this  is 
our  son,  and  that  he  was  born  blind:  but  how  he 
now  seeth,  we  know  not;  or  who  upeued  his  eyes, 
we  know  not:  ask  him:  he  is  of  age;  he  shall  speak 

22  for  himself.  These  things  said  his  parents,  be- 
cause they  feared  the  .lews:  for  the  Jews  had 
agreed  already,  that  if  any  man  should  confess 
him  to  6e  Christ,  he  should  be  put  out  of  the  syna- 


ach.  7:  13;  12:42;  19:  38;  Acts  5 :  13.... 6  ver.  34;  ch.  16:  2. 


they  may  have  been  proposed  with  a  look  and 
tone  which  clearly  revealed  the  animus  of  the 
speakers  (inquisitors?),  and  boded  no  good  to 
any  friend  of  Jesus ;  and  we  cannot  avoid 
suspecting  that  they  were  proposed  with  such 
a  look  and  tone. 

20.  We  know  that  this  is  our  son,  and 
that  he  Avas  born  blind.  Thus  two  of  the 
questions  were  answered  plainly,  and  without 
evasion. 

21.  But  by  Avhat  means  (?wiv)  he  now 
seeth,  we  knoAV  not ;  or  who  hath  opened 
his  eyes,  we  knoAvnot.  In  a  certain  sense, 
this  also  was  true;  they  had  no  direct  personal 
knowledge  of  the  miracle;  they  were  not 
present  when  Jesus  anointed  the  eyes  of  their 
son,  and  commanded  him  to  go  to  the  Pool  of 
Siloam  and  wash  ;  and  they  only  knew  by  re- 
port that  it  was  Jesus  who  had  wrought  "the 
sign."  Yet  thej^  must  have  heard  their  son's 
story ;  and  it  is  evident  from  what  follows  that, 
however  joyful  they  were,  because  their  son 
had  received  sight  by  miracle,  they  wished  to 
avoid  saying  anj'thing  favorable  to  Jesus.  He 
is  of  age  ;  ask  him  :  he  shall  speak  for 
himself.  Thus,  through  fear,  they  cast  the 
whole  burden  of  responsibility  as  to  Jesus 
upon  their  son.  In  view  of  the  recent  and 
astonishing  miracle  wrought  for  his  benefit, 
their  words  seem  pusillanimous;  but  they 
may  have  reasoned  with  themselves  that  any 
reference  which  they  could  make  to  Jesus 
would  not  assist  their  son,  while  it  would  call 
down  on  themselves  the  displeasure  of  the 
Pharisees.  But  evidently  their  hearts  were 
not  deeply  touched  with  gratitude  to  Jesus; 
nor  did  they  believe  him  to  be  the  Messiah. 
There  is  reason  to  suppose  that  the  position  of 
the  first  and  second  clauses  given  above  ought 
to  be  reversed;  thus:  Ask  him;  he  is  of  age. 
And  the  last  clause  might  be  translated :  He 
himself  will  nnsiver,  etc.,  emphasizing  the 
thought  that  he,  and  not  his  parents;  he,  in 
distinction  from  any  one  else,  would  answer. 
They  had  reason  to  trust  his  judgment  and 


courage — more    reason,    perhaps,    than    they 
had  to  trust  their  own. 

22.  Because  they  feared  the  Jews  :  for 
the  Jews  had  agreed  already,  that  if  any 
man  did  confess  that  he  was  Christ,  he 
should  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue.  Com- 
pare the  Kevised  Version.     At  what  time  this 
agreement  was  made   by  the  Jews,  does   not 
appear.     (See   Note  on  7:  49.)     Whether  it 
was  ratified  by  a  formal  act  of  the  Sanhedrin, 
or  by  that  of  some  inferior  court,  cannot  be 
certainly  known.     It  was,  however,  a  definite 
agreement  made  by  those  who  controlled  re- 
ligious affairs,  and  it  was  known  to  the  parents 
of  the  man  who  had  received  sight.     "The 
Jewish  system  of  excommunication  was  three- 
fold."    According  to  the  first  kind,  "the  ex- 
communicated person  was  prohibited  the  use 
of  the  bath,  orof  the  razor,  or  of  the  convivial 
table;  and  all  who  had  to  do  with  him  were 
commanded  to  keep  him  at  four  cubits'  dis- 
tance.    He  was  allowed  to  go  to  the  temple, 
but  not  to  make  the  circuit  in  the  ordinary 
manner.     The  term  of  this  punishment  was 
thirty  days ;  and  it  was  extended  to  a  second, 
and  to  a  third  thirty  days,  when  necessary.  If, 
at  the  end  of  that  time,  the  offender  was  still 
contumacious,  he  was  subjected  to  the  second 
excommunication.       Severer  penalties   were 
now  attached.     The  offender  was  not  allowed 
to  teach  or  to  be  taught  in  companj'  with  others, 
to  hire   or  to  be  hired,  nor  to  perform  any 
commercitil  transactions    beyond  purchasing 
the  necessaries  of  life.     The  sentence  was  de- 
livered by  a  court  of  ten,  and  was  accompa- 
nied by  a  solemn  malediction."  .  .  The  last 
excommunication  "was  an  entire  cutting  oflf' 
from  the  congregation.     It  has  been  supposed 
by  some  that  these  two  latter  forms  of  excom- 
munication were  undistinguishable  from  each 
other."— (Smith's  "Diet,  of  the  Bible,"  Ex- 
communication.)     Whether    the    expulsion 
from  the  synagogue  here  spoken  of  as  deter- 
mined upon  by  the  Jews  was  the  first  or  the  sec- 
ond kind  of  excommunication,  is  a  matter  of 


208 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IX. 


23  Therefore  said  his  parents,  He  is  of  age ;  ask  him. 

24  Theu  again  called  they  the  man  that  was  blind, 
and  said  unto  him,  »  Give  God  the  praise:  'we  know 
that  this  man  is  a  sinner. 

2.5  He  answered  and  said.  Whether  he  be  a  sinner  or 
no,  I  know  not :  one  thing  I  know,  that,  whereas  I  was 
blind,  now  I  see. 

20  Then  said  they  to  him  again.  What  did  he  to  thee? 
how  opened  he  thine  eyes  ? 

27  He  answered  them,  I  have  told  yon  already,  and 
ye  did  not  hear:  wherefore  would  ye  hear  it  again? 
will  ye  also  be  his  disciples  ? 

28  Then  they  reviled  him,  and  said.  Thou  art  his  dis- 
ciple ;  but  we  are  Moses'  disciples. 


23  gogue.     Therefore  said  his  parents.  He  is  of  age; 

24  ask  him.  ^o  they  called  a  second  time  the  man 
that  was  blind,  and   said  unto   him,  Give   glory  to 

25  God :  we  know  that  this  man  is  a  sinner.  He  there- 
fore answered,  Whether  he  is  a  sinner,  I  know  not: 
one  thing  I  know,  that,  whereas  I  was  blind,  now  I 

26  see.     They  said  therefore  unto  him.  What  did  he  to 

27  thee?  how  opened  he  thine  eyes?  He  answered 
them,  I  told  you  even  now,  and  ye  did  not  hear: 
wherefore  would  ye  hear   it  again?    would  ye  also 

28  become  his  disciples?  And  they  reviled  him,  and 
said,  Thou  art  his  disciple ;  but  we  are  disciples  of 


a  Josh.  7:  19;  1  Sam.  6:5 b  ver.  16. 


some  doubt.    In  either  case,  however,  it  was  a  | 
serious  evil  and  disgrace,  from  a  Jewish  point 
of  view,  and  no  one  would  be  ready  to  incur 
it  for  a  slight  reason. 

23.  Therefore  (or,  for  this  cause),  said 
his  parents.  He  is  of  age;  ask  him. 
Having  stated  the  precise  ground  for  the  fear 
which  the  parents  had,  the  Evangelist  reite- 
rates his  declaration  that  this  fear  was  their 
motive  for  declining  to  speak  of  Jesus  them- 
selves, and  referring  their  questioners  to  their 
son. 

24-34.  Second  Examination  of  the 
Man  who  was  Blind. 

25.  Give  God  the  praise  :  {or, glory);  we 
know  that  this  man  is  a  sinner.  It  is  the 
party  hostile  to  Jesus  that  recalls  the  man, 
and  undertakes  to  make  him  confess  that 
Jesus  had  wrought  no  miraole  in  his  case. 
Their  exhortation,  Give  God,  assumes  that 
by  ascribing,  in  any  way,  a  miracle  to  Jesus, 
and  calling  him  a  prophet  (ver.  17),  he  had  dis- 
honored God,  while,  by  accepting  their  view 
and  denouncing  Jesus  as  a  sinner,  because  he 
liad  done  work  on  the  Sabbath,  he  would  be 
giving  glory  to  God.  And,  as  if  they  had  per- 
fect knowledge  in  religious  matters,  they  go 
on  to  say:  We— who  are  the  religious  judges, 
leaders,  and  teachers  of  the  people — know 
that  this  man  is  a  sinner.  Thus  they  at- 
tempt to  overawe  the  man,  and  constrain  him 
to  say  what  they  put  in  his  mouth.  But,  for- 
tunately, he  is  not  the  man  to  be  overawed. 
He  can  see;  he  can  reason;  he  is  true;  he 
knows  what  to  say;  and,  after  these  eighteen 
hundred  years,  we  read  and  rejoice  that  he 
said  it. 

25.  Whether  he  be  a  sinner  or  no,  I 
knoAV  not:  one  thing  I  knoAV,  that, 
whereas  I  was  blind,  now  I  see.  A 
cautious,  but  decisive  answer.  Of  one  thing 
he  is  certain,  and  this  one  thing  is  really  of 


pre-eminent  importance  (comp.  Mark  10:  21; 
Luke  10 :  42)  in  considering  the  claims  of 
Jesus.  Though  naturally  blind,  the  man 
now  sees;  and  no  pressure  of  Jewish  authority 
or  of  Pharisaic  dogmatism  can  lead  him  to 
hesitate  about  this  marvelous  change.  Yet 
he  forbears  to  express  his  belief  that  Jesus  is 
not,  as  they  affirm,  a  sinner.  He  takes  a 
position  which  is  unassailable. 

26.  What  did  he  to  thee?  Hoav 
opened  he  thine  eyes?  Unable,  as  they 
perceive,  to  make  him  deny  or  conceal  the 
principal  fact,  they  proceed  to  question  him 
again  about  the  process— hoping,  perhaps,  to 
detect  some  inconsistency  between  his  several 
statements,  or  something  in  the  conduct  of 
Jesus  which  they  can  criticise  as  wrong. 

27.  I  have  told  you  already,  and  ye 
did  not  hear  (or,  and  did  ye  not  hear?) 
wherefore  would  ye  hear  it  again? 
will  ye  also  be  his  disciples?  The  prin- 
cipal reason  for  making  the  second  clause  of 
this  answer  a  question,  is  that,  so  understood, 
the  word  hear  has  the  same  sense  in  both 
clauses;  while  if  the  second  clause  is  not 
made  a  question,  the  word  hear  must  signify 
the  mental  act  of  hearkening,  in  the  former 
instance,  and  the  mere  physical  act  of  hearing 
in  the  latter.  T'^e  last  question  is  slightly 
ironical  but  the  form  of  it  in  Greek  antici- 
pates a  negative  answer.  "  Ye  do  not  wish  to 
become  his  disciples?  " 

28.  Then  (strictly.  a7id'\  they  reviled  him, 
and  said.  Thou  art  his  disciple;  but  Ave 
are  Moses'  disciples.  This  language  of 
the  Jews  may  have  been  regarded  by  them  as 
strictly  true,  and  in  the  sight  of  God  it  was, 
doubtless,  highlj'  honorable  to  the  man  ad- 
dressed. Yet,  it  was  uttered  in  a  bitter,  rail- 
ing, contemptuous  tone,  and  it  is  properly 
characterized  by  the  Evangelist,  when  he 
says  :  They  reviled  him.    The  pronoun  his 


Ch.  IX.] 


JOHN. 


209 


29  We  kuow  that  God  spake  unto  Moses  :  as  for  this 
fellow,  "  we  know  not  from  whence  he  is. 

30  The  man  answered  and  said  unto  them,  ^Why 
herein  is  a  marvellous  thing,  that  ye  kuow  not  from 
whence  he  is,  and  yet  he  hath  opened  mine  eyes. 

31  Now  we  know  that  <^God  hearelh  not  sinners:  but 
if  any  man  be  a  worsliipper  of  (iod,  and  doeth  his  will, 
him  he  heareth. 

32  Since  the  world  began  was  it  not  heard  that  any 
man  opened  the  eyes  of  one  that  was  born  blind. 

33  ■*  If  this  man  were  not  of  Uod,  he  could  do  nothing. 


29  Moses.  We  know  that  God  hath  spoken  unto 
Mo.->es:   but  as  for  this  man,  we  kuow  not  whence 

30  he  is.  The  man  answered  and  said  unto  them. 
Why,    herein    is    the    marvel,   that    ye    know    not 

31  whence  he  is,  and  ycl  he  opened  mine  eyes.  We 
kuow  that  God  heareth  not  sinners:  but  if  any  man 
be   a  worshipper  of  God,  and  do  his  will,  him  he 

32  heareth.  Since  the  world  began  it  was  never  heard 
that  any  one  opened  the  eyes  of  a  man  born  blind. 

33  If  this  man  were  not  from  God,  he  could  do  nothing. 


(eKciVov)  indicates  very  clearly  that  they  sep- 
arated themselves  from  Jesus.  The  conjunc- 
tion then,  or  therefore,  at  the  beginning  of 
this  verse,  is  not  found  in  the  best  manu- 
scripts, but  several  of  them  have  the  connec- 
tive and. 

29.  We  knowthatGod  spake  (or,  has  spo- 
ken) unto  Moses  :  as  for  this  fellow  {inan,) 
we  know  not  from  whence  he  is.  Hath 
spoken  unto  Moses,  because  God  was  still 
speaking,  through  the  inspired  writings  of 
Moses,  to  them.  The  perfect  tense  of  the  verb 
brings  over  the  act  of  speaking  from  the  past 
into  the  present,  and  represents  God  as  still 
teaching  the  people  through  their  great  law- 
giver. The  pronoun  this,  {tovtou),  meaning 
this  man,  or,  this  one,  is  used  contempt- 
uously. (Comp.  6:  42.)  Whence  he  is — 
that  is,  from  whom  he  has  come,  or  by 
whose  authority  he  speaks.  They  mean  to 
affirm  that  he  has  given  t'hem  no  credentials 
proving  himself  to  be  from  God.  He  may  be 
from  beneath,  as  well  as  from  above. 

30.  Why,  herein  is  a  marvellous  thing, 
that  ye  knoAV  not  from  Avhence  he  is,  and 
yet  he  hath  opened  (rather,  opens)  mine 
eyes.  The  precise  connection  of  this  re- 
sponse with  the  words  of  the  Jews,  is  doubt- 
ful. The  Greek  term,  here  translated  why, 
usually  signifies  for,  and  makes  the  sentence 
in  which  it  stands  a  reason  for  something 
said  before.  If  that  is  its  meaning  here,  the 
reply  of  the  man  under  examination  was 
slightly  elliptical,  and  may  be  completed 
thus:  "Say  not  so;  for  in  this  is  a  marvellous 
thing,"  etc.  It  should  also  be  observed  that 
the  pronoun  ye  is  emphatic;  "that  ye" — who 
are  instructed  in  religious  matters,  and  able 
to  teach  others — "  do  not  know  whence  he  is." 
The  word  yet  is  inserted  in  the  last  clause — 
and  yet  he  hath  opened  mine  eyes — though 
there  is  nothing  equivalent  to  it  in  the  orig- 
inal,  and  though   the  sense   does  not   ali)60~ 


lutely  require  it.  The  undoubted  meaning  of 
the  original  is,  however,  more  clearly  ex- 
pressed by  inserting  this  word. 

31.  Now  we  know  that  God  heareth  not 
sinners  ;  but  if  any  man  be  a  worshipper 
of  God,  and  doeth  his  will,  him  he  hear- 
eth. For  the  first  proposition,  see  Ps.  G6:  18; 
Prov.  15:  9-29;  Lsa.  1 :  11-15.  The  second  prop- 
osition is  but  the  converse  of  the  first,  and  is 
sustained  by  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. See  1  Kings  18:  36  sq.  ;  2  Kings  4:  33 
sq. ;  Ps.  25 :  3.  The  word  sinners  is  here 
used  of  those  who  do  do  not  truly  worship 
God,  (comp.  ver.  16,  24),  but  disobey  openly 
his  commands.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  all 
men  are  sinners — the  best,  as  well  as  the 
worst— the  disciple  that  leaned  on  Jesus' 
breast,  as  well  as  the  disciple  that  betrayed 
him  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver;  the  man  that 
hungers  and  thirsts  after  righteousness,  as 
well  as  the  man  that  tramples  deliberately  on 
the  authority  of  his  Maker.  (Rom.3:9,  sq.)  But 
the  word  is  here  used  in  another  and  more 
restricted  sense. 

32.  Since  the  world  began  was  it  not 
heard  that  any  man  opened  the  eyes  of 
one  that  was  born  blind.  The  man  appre- 
ciates the  greatness  of  the  miracle  that  has 
been  wrought  for  his  benefit.  It  is  unparal- 
leled. There  is  no  record  of  such  a  miracle 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures — no  tradition  of  such  a 
miracle  known  to  the  people  of  God.  Since 
time  began  such  a  sign  has  never  been  given. 

33.  If  this  man  were  not  of  (rather, 
from)  God,  he  could  do  nothing.  The 
argument  is  complete.  Miracles  are  wrought 
by  God  in  answer  to  the  prayer,  not  of  his 
foes,  but  of  his  servants.  A  great  and  unpar- 
alleled miracle  has  been  wrought  at  the  word 
of  this  man.  But  unless  he  were  from  God, 
unless  he  were  God's  servant  and  messenger, 
he  could  do  nothing  of  the  kind.  The  conclu- 
sion was  one  that  need  not  be  stated. 


0 


210 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  IX. 


34  They  answered  and  said  unto  him,  "Thou  wast, 
altogetlier  born  in  sins,  and  dost  thou  teach  us?  And 
they  cast  hiiu  out. 

35  Jesus  heard  that  they  had  cast  him  out;  and  when 
he  had  found  him,  he  said  unto  him,  Dost  thou  believe 
on  '  the  Son  of  God? 


34  They  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Thou  wast  alto- 
gether born  in  sins,  and  dost  thou  teach  us?  And 
they  cast  him  out. 

35  Jesus  heard  thai  they  had  cast  him  out;  and  find- 
ing him,  he  said,  Dost  thou  believe  on  i  the  Son  of 


a  ver.  2  ..  .6  M:itt.  14  :  33:  16:16;  Mark  1  :  1 ;  ch.  10  :  36  ;  1  John  5:  13. 1  Many  ancient  auihotitie-i  read,  t/ie  So?i  o/ man. 


34.  Thou  wast  altogether  born  in  sins, 
and  dost  thou  teach  us?  This  translation 
dofes  not  give  the  exact  sense  of  the  original. 
For  the  word  altogether  represents  an  ad- 
jective meaning  "whole"  (oAos),  and  agree- 
ing with  thou.  Hence  the  meaning  is:  "TAom, 
as  to  thy  whole  being,  body  and  soul,  wast 
born  in  sins."  And  this  taunt  appears  to  rest 
on  the  assumption  that  he  was  born  blind,  and 
that  his  blindness  was  due  to  his  utter  sinful- 
ness at  birth.  (Comp.  ver.  2.)  Thus,  in  their 
wrath  and  confusion,  they  virtually  concede 
that  the  man  has  received  sight  by  a  miracle; 
and  the  principle  on  which  they  condemn 
him,  as  loaded  with  sins  at  birth,  should  lead 
them  to  believe  in  Jesus  as  a  true  messenger 
from  God.  And  they  cast  him  out.  That 
is,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  out  of  the  place 
where  they  were — a  rude  and  passionate  ex- 
pulsion from  their  presence.  The  words  maj' 
signify  that  they  excluded  him  from  the  .sj-n- 
agogue  (ver.  22);  but  he  had  not  yet  confessed 
Jesus  to  be  the  Chri.st,  and  could  not,  there- 
fore, be  eicommunieated  in  pursuance  of  the 
agreement  which  the  Pharisees  had  made. 
Yet,  in  their  fury,  they  may  have  driven  him 
from  their  presence,  and  may  have  followed 
up  their  persecution  by  a  formal  excommuni- 
cation. The  subsequent  narrative  renders  this 
probable. 

"If  the  narrative  of  this  chapter  is  not  thus 
far  true  to  human  nature,  we  may  despair  of 
finding  anything  in  history  that  is.  The  bear- 
ing of  the  Pharisees  is  of  a  piece  throughout 
— consistently  hostile  to  Jesus,  arrogant,  and 
bitter.  So,  too.  is  that  of  the  blind  man  ;  for, 
from  first  to  last,  he  is  modest,  resolute,  faith- 
ful." This  comment,  made  by  the  writer 
fifteen  years  ago,  agrees  with  that  of  Godet  in 
the  last  edition  of  his  work  on  John:  "If 
there  is  anj'  narrative  whose  truth  is  guaran- 
teed by  its  simple  and  dramatic  character,  it 
is  this.  The  fact  has  not  been  invented  to 
serve  as  the  basis  for  a  discourse  ;  for  the  dis- 
course does  not  exist.  This  whole  scene  is  so 
little -ideal  in  its  nature,  that,  on  the  contrary, 


it  rests  from  beginning  to  end  on  the  reality 
of/act  .  .  This  whole  chapter  otfers  to  mod- 
ern criticism  a  portrait  of  itself.  The  defend- 
ers of  the  Sabbatic  institute  reasoned  thus: 
God  cannot  lend  his  power  to  one  who  violates 
the  Sabbath;  hence  the  miracle  ascribed  to 
Jesus  did  Tio^occur.  .  .  The  adversaries  of  mir- 
acles in  the  Evangelical  history  reason  in 
precisely  the  same  waj',  merely  substituting 
a  scientific  axiom  for  a  religious  statute :  The 
supernatural  cannot  be;  and,  therefore,  how- 
ever well  attested  the  healing  of  the  blind  man 
may  be,  it  did  not  take  place." 

35-38.  The  Blind  Man  Worships  Je- 
sus AS  THE  Christ. 

35.  Jesus  heard  that  they  had  cast  him 
out;  and  when  he  had  found  him,  he 
said  unto  him,  Dost  thou  believe  on  the 
Son  of  God?  It  may  be  assumed  that  Jesus 
was  aware  of  the  character  and  spirit  which 
this  man  had  shown  in  his  examination  by 
the  Pharisees,  and  that  he  perceived  in  him  a 
heart  ready  to  welcome  the  truth.  On  this 
account — though  how  long  after  the  occur- 
rences related  in  ver.  13-34,  we  do  not  know — 
he  sought  for  him,  and  giive  him  an  oppor- 
tunity to  honor  his  benefactor  as  the  Christ. 
Some  of  the  earliest  and  best  manuscripts 
read  the  Son  of  man,  instead  of  the  Son  of 
God,  in  the  last  clause.  Indeed,  the  external 
evidence  for  the  one  reading  is  about  equal  to 
that  for  the  other.  But  two  considerations 
favor  the  received  text:  (1)  That  Jesus  called 
himself  the.  Son  of  man  much  oftener  than  he 
called  himself  the  Son  of  God,  and  a  tran- 
scriber would  be  more  likely  to  substitute  a 
frequent  for  an  infrequent  designation  than 
the  reverse.  And  (2)  that  the  connection 
seems  to  make  the  title  Son  of  God  more 
natural  and  pertinent  than  the  title  Son  of 
man.  But,  in  either  case,  we  must  suppose 
that  Jesus  used  a  designation  that  would  be 
understood  by  the  blind  man  as  referring  to 
the  Messiah.  And,  in  either  case,  the  ex- 
pression believe  on  signifies  a  confidence  or 
trust  which  terminates  in  a  personal  object. 


Ch.  IX.] 


JOHN. 


211 


3(>  He  answered  and  said,  Who  is  he,  Lord,  that  I 
might  believe  on  hiiu? 

37  And  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Thou  hast  both  seen 
hiiu,  and  "  it  is  he  that  talkelh  with  thee. 

38  And  he  said.  Lord,  I  believe.  And  he  worshipped 
him. 

31)  And  Jesus  said,  *For  judgment  I  am  come  into 
this  world,  "that  they  which  see  not  might  see;  and 
that  tliey  which  see  might  be  made  blind. 

40  And  some  of  the  Pharisees  which  were  with  him 
heard  these  words,  ''and  said  unto  him,  Are  we  blind 
also  ? 


3G  God  '!    He  answered  and  said.  And  who  is  he.  Lord, 

37  that  I  may  believe  on  him?  Jesus  said  unto  him. 
Thou  hast  both  seen  him,  and  he  it  is  that  speaketh 

38  with  thee.     And  he  said.  Lord,  I  believe.     .Vud  he 

39  worshipped  him.  And  .lesus  said,  For  judgment 
came  I  into  this  world,  that  they  who  see  not  mav 

40  see;  and  that  they  who  see  n'lay  become  blind. 
Tliose  of  the  I^harLsees  that  were  with  him  heard 
these  things,  and  said  unto  hiui.  Are  we  also  blind? 


ach.  4:  26....&ch.  5:22,  27;  seech.  3:  17;  12:  47 c  Mutt.  13:  13 d  Rom.  2:  19. 


36,  37.  Who  is  he,  Lord,  that  I  might 
believe  on  him  ?  .  .  .  Thou  hast  both  seen 
him,  and  it  is  he  that  talkcth  with  thee. 
The  words  thou  hast  seen  him,  are  to  be 

understood  of  natural  sight,  not  of  spiritual 
discernment;  and  the  time  referred  to  is  that 
of  the  present  interview.  "Thou  hast  already 
seen  him,  and  the  one  who  is  now  talking 
with  thee  is  he."  But  how  could  he  recog- 
nize Jesus  as  the  man  who  had  anointed  his 
eyes  with  clay,  and  had  sent  him  to  wash  in 
Siloam  ?  How,  if  he  had  not  seen  him  since 
his  sight  was  restored?  Doubtless  by  tones 
of  voice — unlike  those  of  any  other  man. 
For  the  sense  of  hearing  is  generally  very 
exquisite  and  highly  cultivated  in  the  blind. 
And  even  with  those  who  see,  recognition  by 
voice  is  quite  as  certain  as  recognition  by 
sight.  Besides,  there  must  have  been  a  sin- 
cerity, purity,  authority,  and  love  in  the  tones 
of  the  Saviour's  voice,  which  inspired  rever- 
ence and  trust.  Hence  the  effect  on  this  true 
and  grateful  man  was  instant.  That  voice, 
heard  by  such  a  man,  would  never  be  for- 
gotten. 

38.  And  he  said,  Lord,  I  believe.  And 
he  worshipped  him.  In  other  words,  he 
affirmed  his  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
the  Son  of  God,  and  paid  to  him  religious 
homage.  Whether  he  comprehended  the 
real  import  of  the  title  "Son  of  God,"  it  is 
impossible  to  say;  but  he  knew  enough  of 
its  meaning  to  bring  him  to  his  knees  before 
Jesus.  And  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
Jesus,  neither  in  this  instance,  nor  in  any 
other,  refuses  any  degree  of  worship  that  is 
paid  to  him.  He  is  worthy  to  receive  all 
honor  and  praise  on  earth  and  in  heaven. 

39.  For  judgment  I  am  come  (or,  ca7ne) 
into  this  world,  that  they  which  see  not 
might  (or,  may)  see,  and  that  they  which 
see  might  (or,  may)  be  made  blind.  The 
ultimate  and  supreme  end  of  Christ's  coming 


into  the  world  was  to  save  the  lost.  (12:  «;  3: 
16,  17.)  But,  in  accomplishing  that  end,  many 
would  be  hardened,  and  fall  under  greater 
condemnation.  (Luke  2:  34;  2  Cor. 2:  16;  juim  12:  40.) 
This  double  effect  of  Christ's  mission  to  the 
world  was  foreseen  and  embraced  in  the  pur- 
pose of  God.  Hence  it  is  here  declared  that 
one  object  and  result  of  the  Saviour's  coming 
was  judicial ;  to  wit,  that  those  who  felt  them- 
selves to  be  spiritually  poor  and  blind,  like 
babes  in  their  knowledge  of  divine  things, 
might  be  made  to  see  the  truth,  while  those 
who  felt  themselves  to  be  wise  and  prudent, 
masters  in  Israel,  and  needing  no  instruction 
as  to  the  will  of  God,  might  sink,  through 
their  rejection  of  offered  light,  into  ever 
deeper  spiritual  darkness.  (Matt.  5: 3-6;  11 :  25;  13 : 
13-15.)  The  language  of  Jesus  is  figurative, 
having  no  reference  to  physical  blindness  or 
sight,  but  using  these  as  emblems  of  states  of 
the  soul  in  the  presence  of  divine  truth.  His 
words  may  have  been  addressed  to  the  man 
whose  phj'sical  and  spiritual  vision  had  both 
been  restored,  but  they  were  not  intended  for 
him  only.  Others  were  listening,  and  others 
responded. 

40.  And  some  (or,  those)  of  the  Phari- 
sees Avhich  Avere  with  him  heard  these 
words,  and  said  unto  him.  Are  we  blind 
also?  Their  question  is  so  framed  in  the 
Greek  as  to  show  that  they  deemed  an  affirma- 
tive answer  absurd  or  impossible.  And  their 
tone  was  probably  one  that  indicated  their 
feeling  quite  as  clearly  as  the  words  they 
uttered:  "You  do  not  mean  to  say  that  we, 
also,  as  well  as  the  people  that  know  not  the 
law  (':  19.)  are  blind  and  in  need  of  religious 
instruction?"  Thus,  in  spite  of  Christ's  warn- 
ing, they  place  themselves  with  "the  wise 
and  prudent,"  with  "those  that  see";  and 
Jesus  accepts  their  view  of  themselves  as  in  a 
measure  correct.  They  have  knowledge,  they 
do  see;  and  they  ought  to  perceive  that  their 


212 


JOHK 


[Ch.  X 


41  Jesus  said  unto  them,  "If  ye  were  blind,  ye  should  I  41  Jesus  said  unto  them.  If  ye  were  blind,  ye  would 
have  no  sin :  but  now  ye  say,  We  see ;  therefore  your  have  no  sin ;  but  now  ye  say,  We  see :  your  sin  re- 
sin remaineth.  {       luaineth. 

CHAPTER   X. 


VERILY,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  He  that  entereth  not 
by  the  door  into  the  sheepfold,  but  climbeth  up 
some  other  way,  the  same  is  a  thief  and  a  robber. 


1  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  entereth 
not  by  the  door  into  the  fold  of  the  sheep,  but 
climbeth  up  some  other  way,  the  same  is  a  thief  and 


a  ch.  15 :  22,  24. 


knowledge  and  sight  are  very  imperfect.  But 
of  this,  in  their  pride,  they  are  profoundly 
unconscious. 

41.  If  ye  were  blind,  ye  should  have 
no  sin  :  but  now  ye  say.  We  see  ;  there- 
fore your  sin  remaineth.  Therefore,  in 
the  last  clause  of  the  Common  Version,  must 
be  omitted.  Thus  the  Lord  adapts  his  answer 
to  their  own  view  of  the  case.  He  admits 
that  they  have  some  knowledge  of  the  truth. 
But  they  are  satisfied  with  what  they  now 
have,  refusing  to  accept  of  Christ  as  the 
Light  of  the  world.  Their  knowledge  which 
should  lead  them  to  him,  leads  them  to  reject 
him,  and  so  their  sin  remaineth.  For  the 
sin  referred  to  is  the  sin  of  unbelief  in  Christ. 
Others  understand  if  ye  were  blind,  as 
meaning,  if  ye  were  of  those  who  see  not 
— i.  e.,  who  feel  themselves  to  be  blind,  ye 
would  come  to  the  true  Light,  and  your  sin 
would  be  forgiven.  But  as  ye  are  not  of  this 
class,  as  ye  rather  claim  to  see,  ye  refuse  to 
come  to  me,  the  true  Light,  and  your  sin  re- 
mains unforgiven. 


Ch.  10:  1-5.  False  axd  True  Shep- 
herds— i.  e.,  Religious  Teachers. 

1.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  yon.  He 
that  entereth  not  by  (or,  through)  the 
door  into  the  sheepfold  (or,  the  fold  of  the 
shee})),  but  climbeth  up  some  other  way, 
the  same  is  a  thief  and  a  robber.  The 
paragraph  beginning  'vith  this  verse  is  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  discourse  with  which  the 
preceding  chapter  closed;  for  there  are  no 
sufficient  indications  of  any  change  in  time  or 
place.  The  Pharisees  to  whom  he  was  there 
speaking  were,  in  reality,  false  teachers,  en- 
deavoring to  lead  the  people  astray  ;  and  the 
words  verily,  verily,  are  never  elsewhere 
used  at  the  opening  of  a  discourse,  but  rather 
in  the  progress  of  a  conversation,  debate,  or 
discourse,  in  order  to  fix  attention  on  some- 
thing specially  important. 

It  has  been  supposed  by  many  that  the  im- 


agery here  employed  was  suggested  by  the 
sight  of  some  shepherd  with  his  flock,  drawing 
near,  perhaps,  to  the  fold;  but  there  is  little 
need  of  supposing  this  to  have  been  the  case. 
For  the  imagery  was  natural,  expressive,  and 
familiar  to  the  Jews.  It  appears  more  than 
once  in  the  Old  Testament.  (See  Ps.  23 ;  Ezek. 
34;  and  Zech.  11). 

"A  fold  is  not,  in  the  East,  a  covered  struc- 
ture, like  our  stables;  it  is  a  simple  enclosure, 
surrounded  by  a  palisade,  or  wall.  Into  it  the 
flocks  are  brought  for  the  night.  Several 
flocks  are,  ordinarily,  united  in  one  such  en- 
closure. The  shepherds,  after  committing 
them  for  the  night  to  the  care  of  a  common 
guard,  the  porter,  or  gate-keeper,  go  to  their 
own  homes.  In  the  morning,  thej-  return, 
and  knocking  at  the  firmly  closed  door  of  the 
fold,  the  guard  opens  it.  Then  every  one  sep- 
arates his  own  flock  by  calling  them,  and 
when  he  has  brought  nil  together,  leads  them 
forth  to  pasture."  —  Godet.  In  his  work  enti- 
tled "The  Land  and  the  Book,"  I.,  299,  Dr. 
Thomson  says:  "Those  low,  flat  buildings, 
out  on  the  sheltered  side  of  the  valley,  are 
sheepfolds.  They  are  called  marah ;  and 
when  the  nights  are  cold,  the  flocks  are  shut 
up  in  them  ;  but  in  ordinarj'  weather  they  are 
merely  kept  within  the  yard.  This,  you  ob- 
serve, is  defended  by  a  wide  stone  wall, 
crowned  all  around  with  sharp  thorns,  which 
the  prowling  wolf  will  rarely  attempt  to  scale." 

The  principal  object  of  this  first  paragraph 
(ver.  1-5)  is  to  Contrast  false  and  true  shepherds 
— religious  teachers  that  would  serve  them- 
selves by  means  of  the  flock,  and  religious 
teachers  that  would  serve  the  flt)ck  without 
regard  to  personal  advantage.  The  former 
do  not  enter  the  fold  hy  the  door,  but  from 
some  other  point,  and  are  similar  to  thieves 
and  robbers.  The  latter  seek  the  sheep  in  the 
appointed  way,  and  conduct  them  into  "green 
pastures,"  and  "beside  the  still  waters."  By 
the  sheep,  must  be  meant  the  servants  of 
God — ordinarily,  it  means  the  true  servants 


Ch.  X.] 


JOHN. 


213 


2  But  he  that  enterethin  by  the  door  is  the  shepherd 
of  the  sheep. 

3  To  hhu  the  porter  openeth  ;  and  the  sheep  bear  his 
voice:  and  he  ealleth  his  own  sheep  by  name,  and  lead- 
etli  them  out. 

4  And  when  heputteth  forth  his  own  sheep,  he  goeth 
before  them,  and  the  sheep  follow  him :  for  they  know 
his  voice. 

5  And  a  stranger  will  th«y  not  follow,  but  will  flee 
from  hiru  ;  for  they  know  not  the  voice  of  strangers. 

G  This  parable  spake  Jesus  unto  them;  but  they  un- 
derstood not  what  things  they  were  which  he  spake 
unto  them. 


2  a  robber.  But  he  that  entereth  in  by  tlie  door  is 
3  Mile  shepherd  of  the  sheep.  To  him  the  porter 
openeth:  and  the  sheep  hear  his  voice:  and  he 
calleth  his  own   slieep   by   name,  and   leadeth  tlieiu 

4  out.  When  he  hath  put  forth  all  bis  own,  be  gnelh 
before  them,  and  the  sheep   follow  him:    for  tbey 

5  know  his  voice.  And  a  stranger  will  they  not  follow, 
but  will  flee  (rom  him:  for  they  know  not  the  voice 

6  of  strangers.  This  -  parable  spake  .lesus  unto  them : 
but  they  understood  not  what  things  they  were 
which  lie  spake  unto  them. 


1  Or,  a  thepherd 't  Or,  proverb. 


of  God,  not  including  those  who  are  merely 
nominal  .servants.  Whether  the  fold  repre- 
sents the  Theocracy,  or  the  Christian  Church, 
or  the  (invisible)  kingdom  of  God,  is  less 
evident ;  and  it  is  by  no  means  necessary  to 
suppose  that  every  part  of  the  allegory  is  sig- 
nificant of  something  definite  in  the  kingdom 
of  Christ. 

2.  But  he  that  entereth  in  by  the  door 
is  the  (rt)  shepherd  of  the  sheep.  There 
is  usually  but  one  door  or  gate  into  an  Ori- 
ental fold,  and  all  the  shepherds  as  well  "as 
flocks  go  in  and  out  through  that  door.  A 
shepherd  would  never  think,  for  he  would 
never  have  occasion  to  think,  of  entering  at 
any  other  place  ;  and  therefore  it  is  character- 
istic of  a  shepherd  to  enter  by  the  door. 

3.  To  him  the  porter  openeth,  etc.  The 
Holy  Spirit  is  thought  by  some  to  be  repre- 
sented by  the  porter  ;  but  this  interpretation 
is  doubtful.  When  it  is  said  that  the  sheep 
hear  his  voice — that  is,  the  shepherd's  voice 
— it  means  that  they  hearken  to  it,  and  respond 
to  the  call  made  by  it.  In  illustration  of  the 
next  clause,  he  calleth  his  Own  sheep  by 
name,  the  following  words  of  Thomson  may 
be  cited:  "Some  sheep  always  keep  near  the 
shepherd,  and  are  his  special  favorites.  Each 
of  them  has  a  name,  to  which  it  answers  joy- 
fully, and  the  kind  shepherd  is  ever  distrib- 
uting to  such  choice  portions  which  he  gathers 
for  that  purpose.  They  are  the  contented 
and  happy  ones."  In  this  ideal  flock,  with 
its  ideal  shepherd,  all  the  sheep  are  repre- 
sented as  objects  of  special  care — all  are  con- 
tented and  happy,  for  all  have  names.  Hence 
the  Saviour  had  in  mind  none  but  true  be- 
lievers ;  for  the  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are 
his,  and  their  names  are  all  written   in   the 

book  of  life.    (2Tim.  2:  19;  Rev.  3:5.) 

4.  When  he  pntteth  forth  his  own 
sheep  (better,  as  in  Kev.  Ver.,  hathput  forth 
all  his  own),  he   goeth  before  them,  and 


the  sheep  follow  him  :  for  they  know  his 
voice.  "They  are  so  tame  and  so  trained, 
that  they  folloio  tlieir  keeper  with  the  utmost 
docility.  He  le;ids  them  ft>rth  from  the  fold 
.  .  .  just  where  he  pleases.  As  there  are 
many  flocks  in  such  a  place  as  this,  each  one 
takes  a  diff'erent  path,  and  it  is  his  business  to 
find  pasture  for  them."  —  Thomsoti.  Instead 
of  his  own  sheep,  (ri  ZSia  npo^aTa},  in  the  first 
clause,  the  best  critical  authtirities  give  all  his 
ovin  (rd  iiSta  TracTa),  and  this  was  probably  the 
original  text. 

5.  And  a  stranger,  etc.  "If  a  stranger 
call,  they  stop  short,  lift  up  their  heads  in 
alarm ;  and,  if  it  is  repeated,  they  turn  and 
flee.  .  .  .  This  is  not  the  fanciful  costume  of 
a  parable;  it  is  simple  fact.  I  have  made  the 
experiment  repeatedly."  —  Thomson.  If  Dr. 
Thomson  intends  to  suggest  (we  do  not  sup- 
pose he  does)  that  "the  costume"  of  the  Sav- 
iour's "parables"  is  ever  "fitnciful,"  we 
must  dissent  from  his  view.  It  would  be  dif- 
ficult to  name  an  instance  in  which  an^'  part  of 
the  costume  of  his  parables  is  not  true  to  nature. 

The  man  who  was  born  blind  (ch.  9)  recog- 
nized the  voice  of  Jesus  as  that  of  his  shep- 
herd, and  had  refused  to  listen  to  the  voice  of 
the  Pharisees.  In  him,  therefore,  Jesus  had 
seen,  as  in  a  glass,  the  great  multitude  which 
no  man  can  number  that  would,  in  the  ages 
to  come,  acknowledge  him  to  be  their  true 
shepherd,  by  hearing  his  voice  ;  tmd  with  this 
vision  of  the  future  in  his  mind,  he  tells  the 
Pharisees  plainly  that  the  sheep  of  God.  che 
true  Israel,  will  not  follow  them. 

G.  This  parable  spake  Jesus  unto  them, 
etc.  The  word  parable  does  not  reproduce 
exactly  the  Greek  word  (Trapoi/mai  used  by  the 
Evangelist.  That  word  might,  perhaps,  be 
translated  in  this  place,  "similitude,"  or, 
"illustration."  It  does  not  differ,  essentially, 
from  an  extended  metaphor,  or  a  brief  alle- 
gory. 


214 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  X. 


7  Then  said  Jesus  unto  them  again,  Verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  you,  I  am  the  door  of  the  sheep. 

8  All  that  ever  came  before  me  are  thieves  and  rob- 
bers: but  the  sheep  did  not  hear  them. 

9  "I  am  the  door:  by  me  if  any  man  enter  in,  he 
shall  be  saved,  and  shall  go  in  and  out,  and  find  pasture. 


7  Jesus  therefore   said   unto    them    again,  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  I  am  the  door  of  the  sheep. 

8  All  that  came  i  before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers; 

9  but  the  sheep  did  not  hear  them.    I  am  the  door: 
by  me  if  any  man  enter  iu,  he  shall  be  saved,  and 


a  cb.  14:6;  Eph.  2  :  18. 1  Some  aucient  authoiitie^  omit,  before  me. 


The  language  of  Jesus  was  not  understood. 
It  was,  no  doubt,  perceived  to  be  metaphor- 
ical ;  but  the  real  meaning  of  it  was  not  seen. 
He,  therefore,  proceeds  with  his  discourse, 
drawing  attention  to  himself  and  his  man- 
ifold relations  to  the  flock.  His  method  of 
teaching  was  full  of  wisdom  ;  for,  b"  thus 
clothing  his  doctrine  in  a  simple  allegory,  the 
underlying  sense  of  which  was  not  clearly 
discerned  by  his  foes,  he  was  enabled  to  go  on 
with  his  discourse,  and  give  them  a  large 
amount  of  food  for  reflection. 

7-10.  Jesus  the  Door  to  the  Sheep. 

7.  Verity,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  I  am 
the  door  of  the  sheep.  The  fold  is  the  place 
of  safety,  and  Jesus  declares  himself  to  be  the 
door  to  that  place  of  safety,  where  the  sheep 
are,  and  into  which  the  shepherds  also  must 
enter.  Only  through  him  can  the  sheep  be 
found,  or  sheltered,  or  fed.  This  may  have 
been  spoken  after  an  interval  of  time. 

8.  All  that  (ever  should  be  omitted)  came 
before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers.  It 
seems  possible  and  best  to  understand,  that 
the  words,  all  that  came  before  me,  refer 
to  those,  and  to  those  only,  who  had  come 
representing  themselves  virtually  as  the 
door,  or  as  those  through  whom  the  people 
could  be  saved.  In  this  sense  i.he  Pharisees, 
■who  insisted  with  so  much  confidence  on  their 
knowledge  of  the  law,  were  embraced  in  the 
class  referred  to.  For  they  professed  to  teach 
inen  how  to  be  saved  without  reference  to  the 
Messiah;  they  virtually  pronounced  them- 
selves sufficient,  and  his  coming  unnecessary. 
The  language  of  Christ  need  not  be  supposed 
to  affirm  that  any  one  had  already  appeared 
claiming,  in  so  many  words,  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah. What  they  had  done  virtually,  they 
had  done  really.  Jesus  was  "the  coming 
One"  ;  but  they  had  pitted  their  authority' 
and  teaching  against  him,  making  themselves 
the  coming  ones.  Thus,  they  came.  Yet, 
the  really  humble  and  spiritual  did  not  hear 
their  voice;  but  that  of  Jesus.  Hence,  no  ar- 
gument can  be  drawn  from  it  in  support  of 
a  post-apostolic  origin  of  this  Gospel,  as  if  the 


author  of  it,  living  in  the  second  century,  had 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  words  that  could 
only  have  been  spoken  by  him  if  he  had  lived 
fifty  years  later  than  he  did.  B3'  the  sheep, 
in  the  last  clause,  was  evidently  meant  the 
true  children  of  God. 

9.  By  me  if  any  man  enter  in,  he  shall 
be  saved,  and  shall  go  in  and  out,  and 
find  pasture.  These  words  are,  doubtless, 
supposed  by  most  readers  to  refer  to  the  sheep, 
and  not  to  shepherds.  But  there  are  strong 
reasons  for  thinking  that  Jesus  had  in  mind 
shepherds.  (1)  The  general  object  of  the  al- 
legory is  to  distinguish  between  false  and  true 
religious  teachers.  It  relates  to  the  shepherds, 
and  not  to  the  sheep.  It  assumes  that  all  the 
sheep  are  sheep,  and  not  wolves;  and  of  course 
they  go  in  and  out  through  the  door.  But  it 
speaks of^3?'q/ie.s-.se(i? shepherds,  who donot make 
use  of  the  do(;r,  because  they  are,  in  reality, 
"thieves  and  robbers."  (2)  The  eighth  verse 
prepares  the  way  for  the  ninth,  if  the  latter  is 
understood  to  refer  to  shepherds;  for,  b3'  pro- 
nouncing those  who  tauglit  salvation  without 
Christ  to  be  "thieves  and  robbers,"  he  has  led 
us,  \>y  the  law  of  contrast,  to  expect  a  reference 
to  genuine  shepherds,  and  their  relation  to  him 
who  is  the  door  and  the  way.  (3)  The  sin- 
gular number  and  the  pronoun  (tW)  point  to 
a  shepherd  more  naturally  than  to  one  of  the 
sheep.  (4)  The  finding  of  pasture  is  the  work 
of  the  shepherd,  rather  than  of  the  sheep; 
while  the  going  in  and  out  is  at  least  as  true 
of  the  shepherd  as  it  is  of  the  sheep.  Indeed, 
the  allegory'  represents  the  sheep  as  being  led 
in  and  out,  rather  than  as  going  in  and  out  of 
their  own  motion,  while  it  represents  the 
shepherd  as  going  in  and  out  of  his  own  choice. 
Hence,  in  so  far  as  consistency  of  figurative 
speech  is  concerned,  a  reference  of  this  verse 
to  shepherds  is  more  natural  than  a  reference 
of  it  to  the  sheep.     (See  Zech.  11 :  5,  8,  17.) 

The  declaration  that  the  shetjherd  who  en- 
ters by  the  door  will  be  saved,  suggests  that 
false  teachers,  that  thieves  and  robbers,  not 
onlj'  imperil  the  sheep,  but  also  rush  into 
danger  themselves.     (Comp.  1  Cor.   3:   15.) 


Ch.  X.] 


JOHN. 


215 


10  The  thief  cometh  not,  but  for  to  steal,  and  to  kill, 
aud  to  destroy :  I  aui  couiu  that  tliey  might  have  life, 
and  that  they  might  have  it  more  abundantly. 

11  "  I  am  the  good  shepherd:  the  good  shepherd  giv- 
eth  his  life  for  the  sheep. 

12  But  he  that  is  an  hireling,  and  not  the  shepherd, 
whose  own  the  sheep  are  not,  seeth  the  wolf  coming, 
aud  *  leaveth  the  sheep,  and  tteeth  ;  aud  the  wolf  catch- 
eth  them,  and  scattereth  the  sheep. 

IS  The  hireling  fleeth,  because  he  is  an  hireling,  and 
careth  not  for  the  sheep. 


10  shall  go  in  and  go  out,  and  shall  find  pasture.  The 
thief  Cometh  not,  but  that  he  may  steal,  and  kill, 
and  destroy :  I  came  that  they  may   have  life,  and 

11  may  '  have  il  abundantly.  I  am  the  good  shepherd : 
the  good  shepherd  layeth  down  his  lite  for  the  sheep. 

12  He  that  is  a  hireling,  aud  not  a  shepherd,  whose  own 
the  sheep  are  not,  beholdeth  the  wolf  coming,  and 
leaveth  the  sheep,  and  fleeth,  aud  the  wolf  snatcheth 

13  them,  aud  scattereth  them :  he  jleeth,  because  he  is  a 


olsa.  40:  It;  Ex.  34:  12,  23;  37  :  24;  Heb.  13  :  20;  1  Pet.  2:  25;  5:  4 6  Zcch.  11 ;  16,  17. 1  Or,  have  abundance. 


This,  too,  is  true ;  and  we  may,  therefore,  per- 
ceive in  tliis  verse  a  warning  addressed  to  the 
Pharisees— and  indeed,  to  all  religious  teach- 
ers who  do  not  recognize  Christ  as  the  only- 
door  and  way  to  spiritual  safety. 

10.  The  thief  (or,  robber)  cometh  not, 
etc.  The  object  of  the  robber  is  his  own  ad- 
vantage, at  whatever  harm  to  the  flock,  and 
the  result  of  his  success  is  destruction  to  the 
sheep.  So  the  result  of  success  on  the  part  of 
religious  pastors  who  do  not  trust  in  Christ,  is 
the  ruin  of  those  who  follow  them.  But  the 
object  of  Christ's  coming  is  the  life  of  the 
sheep.  He  came  into  the  world  that  men 
might  have  the  true  and  eternal  life — a  life 
that  consists  in  knowing  and  loving  God — and 
that  they  might  have  an  abundance  of  this 
higher  life — might  indeed  be  filled  with  all 

the  fullness  of  God.    (l7:  3;  lCor.3:  22;  Eph.  3: 16-19.) 

11-18.  Christ  the  Good  Shepherd. 

11.  I     am     the    good     shepherd.      The 

pronoun  I  is  emphatic — /,  in  distinction  from 
all  others.  By  claiming  to  be  the  good 
shepherd,  Jesus  claims  to  have,  in  a  pre- 
eminent degree,  ever^'  quality  that  belongs  to 
a  shepherd's  interest  in  his  flock — watchful- 
ness, tenderness,  courage,  love;  so  that  he  is 
the  ideal  and  perfect  shepherd.  And  he 
makes  this  claim  in  the  presence  of  those 
who  were  accustomed  to  sing:  "The  Lord  is 
my  shepherd."  How  naturally  would  they 
be  reminded,  by  his  claim,  of  the  words  of 
their  Scriptures,  which  speak  of  Jehovah  as 
the  Shepherd  of  Israel,  and  be  led  to  reject 
his  claim  as  arrogant,  if  not  blasphetnous ! 
Without  sympathy  with  his  character,  or 
some  clear  perception  of  the  sweet  and  rever- 
ent, though  divine  spirit,  which  breathed  in 
every  tone  of  his  voice,  they  would  certainly 
be  startled  and  repelled  by  so  high  a  claim. 
Yet  there  is,  perhaps,  no  saying  of  Jesus  that 
has  been  dearer  to  the  hearts  of  Christians 
than  this.  It  appears  very  often  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Fathers,  and  the  fact  which  it  as- 


serts is  represented  many  times  in  the  early 
works  of  Christian  art.  A  shepherd  with  his 
crook,  or  with  a  lamb  upon  his  shoulders  or 
in  his  bosom,  is  found  depicted  more  fre- 
quently than  any  other  emblem.  The  good 
shepherd  giveth  {layeth  down)  his  life  for 
the  sheep.  This  is  the  supreme  evidence  of 
a  shepherd's  fidelity  to  his  flock,  and  interest 
in  its  preservation.  To  protect  the  sheep,  he 
will  meet  the  lion  or  the  bear  at  the  risk  of 
his  own  life,  (i  sam.  u:  34-:;6.)  So  Christ  was 
willing  to  save  his  followers  from  destruction 
at  the  price  of  his  own  life;  and  he  foresaw 
that  this  price  must  be  paid.  "The  Son  of 
man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to 
minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a.  ransom  for 
many."  (Matt. 20:  28.)  The  Greek  preposition 
translated  for  (in-ep),  signifies,  generally,  "in 
behalf  of,"  "for  the  benefit  of,"  though, 
sometimes,  it  means  "in  place  of"  Here, 
the  death  of  the  sliepherd  is  supposed  to  save 
the  sheep  from  death,  so  that,  in  a  certain 
general  sense,  his  death  takes  the  place  of 
theirs.  Yet  no  reference  is  made  to  the  fact 
of  penal  substitution;  and  we  can  only  say 
that  the  Good  Shepherd  lays  down  his  life  for 
the  benefit  of  the  sheep — that  is,  to  save  them 
from  destruction. 

12,  13.  But  he  that  is  an  (a)  hireling, 
and  not  the  {a)  shepherd,  whose  own  the 
sheep  are  not,  seeth  the  wolf  coming, 
and  leaveth  the  sheep,  and  fleeth  ;  and 
the  wolf  catcheth  them,  and  scattereth 
the  sheep.  The  hireling  fleeth,  because 
he  is  a  hireling,  and  careth  not  for  the 
sheep.  The  owner  of  a  fiock  does  not  always 
tend  it  himself,  but  sometimes  hires  another 
man  to  do  this  for  him.  And  in  many  in- 
stances this  hired  servant  cares  only  for  him- 
self, and  not  at  all  for  the  good  of  the  flock. 
And  of  such  a  hireling  Jesus  speaks  in  this 
verse;  that  is,  of  one  who  has  the  spirit  of  a 
hireling,  and  not  of  a  shepherd  ;  of  one  who 
feels  that  the  flock  belongs  to  another,  and 


216 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  X. 


14  I  am  the  good  shepherd,  and  "» know  my  sheep,  and 
am  known  of  mine. 

15  <>  As  the  Father  knoweth  me,  even  so  know  I  the 
Father ;  =  and  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep. 

16  And  ''other  sheep  I  have,  which  are  nut  of  this 
fold:  them  also  1  must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my 
voice ;  « and  there  shall  be  one  fold,  and  one  shepherd. 


14  hireling,  and  careth  not  for  the  sheep.  I  am  the 
good  shepherd  ;  and  I   know  mine  own,  and  mine 

15  own  know  me,  even  as  the  Father  knoweth  me,  and 
I  know  the  Father  ;  and  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the 

16  sheep.  And  other  sheep  I  have,  that  are  not  of  this 
fold:  them  also  1  must '  bring,  and  they  shall  hear 
my  voice;   and  2 they  shall  become  one  flock,  one 


a  2  Tim.  2:  19 6  M:itt.  11 :  27 c  ch.  13:  13 dl«a.  56:  8. 


.  .e  Ezek.37:  22;  Eph.  2:  14;  I  Pet.  2:  25. 1  Or,  lead. 

be  one  flock. 


.2  Or,  there  thall 


not  to  himself.  When  such  a  keeper  of  the 
flock  beholds  a  wolf  coming,  he  makes  haste 
to  secure  his  own  safety,  leaving  the  flock  to 
be  scattered,  and  the  sheep  to  perish.  Alas, 
there  are  many  religious  teachers  that  are  in 
spirit  hirelings.  Many  have  undertaken  the 
care  of  churches,  the  cure  of  souls,  who  seek 
their  own,  and  not  the  things  of  Christ;  who 
are  almost  indifferent  to  the  spiritual  good  of 
those  under  their  instruction,  but  ever  ready 
to  welcome  personal  comfort  or  advancement. 
Such  pastors  are  sure  to  prove  faithless  in  the 
presence  of  spiritual  foes.  Manj'  a  church 
has  been  scattered  and  lost  by  reason  of  selfish 
leaders. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  Kevised  Version 
has  omitted  two  words,  viz.  :  the  sheep,  at 
the  close  of  ver.  12,  and  three  words,  the 
hireling  fleeth,  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  13. 
These  omissions  seem  to  be  required  by  the 
best  manuscripts,  but  they  do  not  affect  the 
meaning  of  Christ's  language. 

14,  15.  I  am  the  good  shepherd,  etc. 
The  Kev.  Ver.  of  the  remainder  is  better: 
And  I  know  mine  own,  and  mine  own  know 
me,  even  as  the  Father  knoweth  me,  and  I 
know  the  Father.  The  knowledge  here  spoken 
of  is  mutual,  springing  from  personal  ac- 
quaintance and  love.  The  point  of  similarity 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  degree  of  knowledge 
possessed  by  the  shepherd  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  sheep  on  the  other,  as  compared  with 
that  possessed  by  the  Father  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  Son  on  the  other ;  but  it  is  to  be  found 
in  the  kind  or  qualitj'  of  the  knowledge  pos- 
sessed by  all — a  knowledge  founded  on  mu- 
tual recognition  and  love.  Meyer  remarks 
that  the  comparison  refers  to  "the  kind  and 
m.anner — to  the  holy  nature  of  this  mutual 
acquaintanceship.  (Comp.  14:  20;  15:  10; 
17:  8,  21.)  As  between  God  and  Christ,  so 
likewise  between  Christ  and  'them  that  are 
his,'  the  mutual  knowledge  is  that  of  inner- 
most fellowship  of  life  and  love,  in  which 
fellowship  the  knowledge  is  implied."  And 
Lange  says  that  "this  knowledge  does  not 


mean  loving ;  but  still  it  is  an  emphatic  ex- 
pression by  which  a  loving  knowledge  is  im- 
plied." And  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the 
sheep.  The  present  tense  of  the  verb  points 
to  the  near  future,  when  Christ  would  die  for 
the  salvation  of  his  own  "rational  flock." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  we  have  adopted  the 
Kev.  Ver.,  founded  on  a  text  and  punctuation 
diflTering  slightly  from  those  of  the  Common 
Version,  and  that  the  reading  adopted  adds 
somewhat  to  the  clearness  and  force  of  Christ's 
language.  But  it  is  adopted  on  no  other 
ground  than  that  of  superior  manuscript  au- 
thority. 

16,  And  other  sheep  I  have,  which  are 
not  of  this  fold.  This  fold  is  the  Jewish 
nation ;  and  these  words  furnish  a  reply — 
whether  intended  or  not — to  the  scornful  ques- 
tion of  his  foes:  "Will  he  go  unto  the  dis- 
persed among  the  Gentiles,  and  teach  the 
Gentiles?"  (7:35.)  For  he  claims  to  have 
sheep  among  the  Gentiles.  Knowing  that 
there  are  many  outside  of  Israel  who  will  be- 
come bis  disciples  when  the3'  hear  the  gospel; 
knowing  that  the  ancient  prophets  had  fore- 
told the  conversion  of  numerous  Gentiles 
(e.  g.,  Isa.  53:  10,  sq.,  55:  5;  Micah4:  2); 
knowing  that  the  plan  of  God  is  well  ordered 
and  sure,  and  that  the  names  of  all  his  elect 
are  even  now  in  the  book  of  life — he  antici- 
pates the  future,  and  speaks  of  them  as  if  they 
were  already  his  own  in  reality,  as  well  as  in 
prospect  and  purpose.  Them  also  must  I 
bring— not,  indeed,  by  his  personal  ministry 
while  in  the  flesh,  but  by  that  of  Paul  and 
other  messengers  of  life,  whose  work  will  not 
cease  till  the  end  of  time.  The  word  bring 
points  to  the  attractive  and  guiding  power  of 
Christ,  drawing  all  his  followers  together,  as 
the  next  words  declare.  And  they  shall  (or, 
loill)  hear  my  voice.  "He  that  receiveth 
3'ou,  receiveth  me."  To  hear  the  voice  of 
Christ's  ambassadors,  is  to  hear  his  voice;  for 
their  message  is  his  message,  in  substance  and 
spirit.  Let  no  one  who  rejects  the  call  of  Je- 
sus by  the  ministry  of  his  servants  imagine 


Ch.  X.] 


JOHN. 


217 


17  Therefore  doth  my  Father  love  me,  "  because  I  lay 
down  my  life,  that  I  might  take  it  again. 

18  No  man  taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down 
of  myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  '  have 
power  to  take  it  again.  »This  commandment  have  I 
received  of  my  Father. 


17  shepherd.  Therefore  doth  the  Father  love  me,  be- 
cause I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I  may  take  it  again. 

18  No  one  i  taketh  it  away  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down 
of  myself.  I  have  -  power  to  Lay  it  down,  and  I  have 
2 power  to  take  it  again.  This  commandment  re- 
ceived I  from  my  Fattier. 


a  Isa.  53  :  7,  8,  12  ;  Heb.  '2  :  9. 


..b  ch.  2:  19 c  ch.  6  :  38  ;  15:  10;  Acts  2  :  24,  32.- 

right. 


-1  Some  ancient  uutborities  read,  took  it  away. . .  .2  Or, 


that  he  would  have  listened  to  it  with  a  differ- 
ent spirit,  if  it  had  come  to  him  from  the  lips 
of  the  Good  Shepherd  hiinsolf.  And  there 
shall  be  one  fold,  and  one  shepherd.  The 
Kev.  Ver.  is  better.  In  other  words  :  "There 
shall  come  to  be  one  fiock  with  one  shepherd." 
Observe  that  the  words  of  Jesus  are  one  flock, 
not  one  fold.  For  the  idea  of  the  fold  is 
subordinate  to  that  of  the  flock.  It  is  the  flock 
which  belongs  to  the  shepherd,  and  sheep 
from  many  folds  are  to  become  one  flock — in- 
stead of  flocks  that  belong  to  many  shepherds 
being  sheltered  in  one  fold,  as  is  often  the  case 
in  Palestine.  The  unity  contemplated  is  one 
springing  out  of  a  common  relation  to  Christ, 
and  that  relation  is  primarily  spiritual.  Only 
in  a  secondary  sense  can  it  be  one  of  outward 
or  formal  organization.  In  Christ,  Jew  and 
Gentile  will  pos«ess  the  same  inward  temper 
— the  same  trust  and  love  and  hope.  By  him, 
the  middle  wall  of  partition  is  to  be  broken 
down,  and  every  man  who  recognizes  him  as 
the  Good  Shepherd  will  be  recognized  by  him 
as  a  member  of  "the  rational  flock"  which  he 
has  bought  with  his  own  blood. 

17.  Therefore  (or, /o?*  this  reason)  doth 
my  Father  love  me,  because  I  lay  down 
my  life,  that  I  might  (mny)  take  it  again. 
The  expression  for  this  reason  is  generally 
supposed  to  look  backward  to  what  has  been 
said  in  verses  14-16,  and  forward  to  a  re-state- 
ment of  the  same  thought  in  another  form, 
viz. :  because  I  lay  down  my  life,  etc.  It 
will  be  noticed  that  the  words  of  Jesus  in  this 
verse  are  no  longer  figurative,  allegorical,  but 
plain  and  direct;  also,  that  his  approaching 
death  is  represented  as  voluntary,  and  as  about 
to  be  followed  by  his  voluntary  resurrection  ; 
and,  again,  that  this  voluntary  death  and  res- 
urrection are  well  pleasing  to  the  Father.  The 
words  that  I  mny  take  it  again,  are  to  be 
closely  connected  with  the  preceding  expres- 
sion, I  lay  down  my  life.  The  Father's  love 
to  the  Son  has  one  of  its  sources  in  the  redeem- 
ing work  of  the  Son.  But  that  redeeming  work 
depends  on  his  resurrection  as  well  as  on  his 
death.     "The  ground  of  the  love  of  God  lies 


not  merely  in  the  sacrifice,  considered  by  it- 
self, but  in  the  fact  that  the  Good  Shepherd, 
when  he  gives  up  his  life,  is  resolved  to  take  it 
again,  in  order  that  he  may  continue  to  fulfill 
his  pastoral  oflfice  till  the  final  goal  is  reached, 
when  all  mankind  shall  constitute  his  flock." 
— Meyer.  Watkins  remarks  that  "the  key  to 
the  meaning  is  in  the  truth  that  for  Christ  the 
taking  again  of  human  life  is  itself  a  fur- 
ther sacrifice,  and  that  this  is  necessary  for  the 
completion  of  the  Great  Shepherd's  work." 
But  if  the  reunion  of  the  eternal  Word  with 
his  human  bod3'  glorified  is  of  itself  a  sac- 
rifice, it  follows  that  the  humiliation  of  the 
Word  is  eternal ;  for  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  he  will  ever  sunder  his  connection 
with  his  glorified  human  nature.  We  do  not 
see  that  the  view  of  Watkins  is  neces.sarily 
implied  in  the  words  of  Christ,  yet  it  is  a  view 
which  would  perfectly  account  for  his  words, 
and  which,  if  clearly  established,  might  pow- 
erfully move  the  Christian  heart. 

18.  No  man  taketh  it  from  me,  but  I 
lay  it  down  of  myself.  It  is  better  to  fol- 
low the  Greek  exactly,  and  translate  no  one, 
instead  of  no  man  ;  for  Jesus  may  have  in- 
tended to  exclude  the  idea  that  any  being  in 
the  universe  took  from  him  his  life,  without 
his  own  absolutely  free  consent.  This  cer- 
tainly was  true;  and  the  Greek  term  (o^Scl?)  is 
comprehensive  enougli  to  mean  this.  (Sinicli 
18:  6,  7,  8;  Luke  23:  46.)  As  freely  as  the 
Father  gave  the  Son,  so  freely  did  the  Son  give 
himself — a  ransom  for  many.  But  it  is  none 
the  less  true  that  he  suffered  a  violent  death  by 
the  hands  of  sinful  men.  To  this  death  he 
submitted  of  his  own  accord,  and  thus,  in  a 
true  and  important  sense,  laid  down  lis  life; 
but  this  death  was  suffered  by  himself,  not  in- 
flicted by  himself.  Had  he  been  pleased  to 
exercise  his  theanthropic  power  in  retaining 
his  own  life,  as  he  employed  it  in  raising  Laz- 
arus, the  power  of  man  v;ould  have  failed  to 
effect  his  death.  But  himself  he  would  not 
save,  for  he  came  into  the  world  to  be  cruci- 
fied and  slain.  I  have  power  to  lay  it 
down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  ft  again. 


218 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  .  X. 


19  "There  was  a  division  therefore  again  among  the 
Jews  for  these  sayings. 

20  And  many  of  them  said,  *■  He  hatli  a  devil,  and  is 
mad;  why  hear  ye  liim? 

21  Others  said.  These  are  not  tlie  words  of  him  that 
hath  a  devil.  "Can  a  devil  "^open  the  eyes  of  the  blind?  | 


19  There  arose  a  division  again    among  the   Jews 

20  because  of  those  words.  And  many  of  them  said, 
He  hath  a  demon,  and  is  mad;  why  hear  ye  hiui. 

21  Otliers  said.  These  are  not  the  sayings  of  one  pos- 
sessed with  a  demon.  Can  a  demon  open  the  eyes 
of  the  blind? 


och.  7:  43  ;  9  :  16 i  ch.  7:  20;  8  :  48,  52 c  Ex.  4:  11 ;  Ps.  94  :  9  ;  146:  8 d  cli. 


It  is  difficult  to  define  the  word  power,  in 
this  pliice.  Grimm  understands  it  to  signify 
"power  of  choice,  liberty  to  do  what  one 
pleases."  That  is  to  say,  Jesus  claims  that 
he  acts  in  this  matter  with  perfect  freedom; 
that  it  depends  on  himself  whether  he  lays 
down  his  life  or  takes  it  again.  If  this  view 
of  the  word  is  correct,  tlie  next  clause: 
This  commandment  I  have  (omit  have) 
received  of  {from)  my  Father,  must  be 
interpreted,  with  Godet,  to  mean  a  permis- 
sion or  commission,  "to  die  or  not  to  die, 
to  rise  again  or  not  to  rise  again,  according 
to  the  free  inspirations  of  his  own  love." 
Others  understand  the  word  power  (i^ovuiav), 
to  signify,  in  this  place,  "full  and  rightful 
authority";  in  which  case  the  language  of 
Jesus  itnplies  his  perfect  freedom  in  dying 
and  rising  again.  Yet  this  freedom  is  to  be 
used  in  accordance  with  the  Father's  will; 
and  that  will  or  commandment  was  received 
at  the  time  of  the  incarnation.  All  that  he  is 
to  do  or  to  suffer  will  be  strictly  voluntary  on 
his  part ;  but  it  will  be,  at  the  same  time,  in 
pursuance  of  the  Father's  will.  This  inter- 
pretation assigns  a  more  usual  meaning  to  the 
word  translated  power,  and  is,  therefore, 
preferable  to  the  one  first  named.  According 
to  Cremer,  the  original  word  combines  the 
two  ideas  of  right  and  tnight.  Sometimes 
the  one  is  prominent  by  virtue  of  the  context, 
and  som  times  the  other. 

The  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead  is 
frequently  ascribed  to  the  power  and  agency 
of  the  Father;  but  in  this  passage  Jesus  ap- 
pears to  teach  that  he  will  not  only  lay  down 
his  own  life,  but,  also,  take  it  again.  How 
is  this  language  to  be  reconciled  to  that? 
Meyer  says,  that  "the  taking  again  of  his 
life.  .  .  implies  the  giving  it  again — i.  e.,  the 
re-awakening  activity  of  the  Father."  In 
other  words,  the  life  was  restored  by  the  act 
of  the  Father,  but  received  by  the  act  of  the 
Son.  But  he  does  not  explain  what  he  means 
by  the  two  acts.  AVatkins  says  that  "the 
taking  again  was  under  the  Father's  au- 
thority, and  was,  therefore,  itself  the  Father's 


gift."  Compare  ch.  5:  19  sq.,  with  the  Notes. 
Christ  seems  to  be  intent  on  affirming  two 
things:  (1)  The  absolute  voluntariness  of  his 
death  and  resurrection,  and  (2)  the  absolute 
harmony  of  his  conduct  in  this  matter  with 
the  plan  and  will  of  the  Father.  Whether 
he  himself  put  forth  energy  in  bringing  to 
pass  his  own  death,  or  his  own  resurrection,  is 
not  affirmed.  It  was  the  Father's  plan  that 
Christ  should  die  and  rise  again  for  the  salva- 
tion of  the  people;  but  that  he  should  do  this 
of  his  own  accord,  of  his  own  choice,  with  no 
constraint  but  that  of  love.  And  it  was  be- 
cause Christ  freel}'  gave  himself  to  dying  and 
rising  again  for  this  end,  that  the  Father 
loved  him  with  a  special  and  inexpressible 
love. 
19-21.  Effect  of  this  Discourse. 

19.  There  was  a  division,  etc.  Or,  as  in 
the  Rev.  Ver. :  There  arose  a  division  again 
among  the  Jews,  because  of  these  words. 
Comp.  9:  16;  9:  8,  9;  7:  12,  30,  31,  40,  41.  If 
the  writer  means,  bj*  the  Jews, the  leaders  of 
the  people,  who  were  conspicuous  for  their 
bigoted  attachment  to  the  ritual  of  the  old 
religion,  it  is  plain  that  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  this  class  were  favorably  impressed  by 
tlie  sayings  of  Jesus.  Nicodenms  was  not  the 
only  Pharisee  who  was  touched  by  his  wis- 
dom. Therefore,  (oOv),  of  the  Com.  Ver.,  is 
omitted  by  the  highest  authorities. 

20.  And  many  of  them  said,  (or,  were 
saying,)  He  hath  a  devil,  (or,  demon,)  and 
is  mad:  Avhy  hear  ye  him?  The  word 
many  points  to  a  majoritj'  of  the  Jews  pres- 
ent. These  clung  to  the  opinion  which  they 
had  before  expressed.  (8:48.)  But  they  were 
evidently  disturbed  by  the  attention  and  re- 
spect with  which  some  were  listening  to  the 
Saviour.  Hence  they  were  tempted  to  repeat 
their  wild  and  bitter  accusation.  But  their 
scorn  did  not  silence  those  who  had  another 
temper. 

21.  Others  said,  (or,  were  sayirig) — that  is, 
in  response  to  this  bitter  accusation — These 
are  not  the  words  of  him  that  hath  a 
devil    (or,   demon.)     Can  a  devil   {demon) 


Ch.  X.] 


JOHN. 


219 


22  And  it  was  at  Jerusalem  the  feast  of  the  dedica- 
tion, and  it  was  winter. 

23  And  Jesus  walked  in  the  temple  "iu  Solomon's 
porch. 

24  Then  came  the  Jews  round  about  him,  and  said 
unto  him.  How  long  dost  thou  make  us  to  doubt?  If 
thou  be  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly. 


22     1  And  it  was  the  feast  of  the  dedication  at  Jeru- 

23saleui;   it  was  winter;   and  Jesus  was   walking  in 

24  the  temple  in  Solomon's  porch.    The  Jews  iherel'ore 

came   round   about  him,  and   said   unto  him,  How 

long  dost  thou  hold   us  in   suspense?    If  thou  art 


a  Acts  3:11;  5 :  12. 1  Some  ancieut  auihoritit^s  read,  At  that  time  was  the/east. 


open  the  eyes  of  the  blind?  They  repel 
the  accusation  by  appealing  to  the  words  and 
the  works  of  Jesus.  His  language  was  not 
that  of  a  demoniac— fierce,  raving,  incohe- 
rent— nor  was  the  power  possessed  by  a  de- 
mon, such  as  Christ  exercised  when  he  re- 
stored sight  to  the  blind.  Two  convincing 
facts  briefly  and  clearly  stated. 

22,  sq.  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  at  the 
Peast  of  Debication.  (Dec.  20-27,  a.  d. 
29.) 

The  Evangelist  now  passes  over,  in  silence, 
a  period  of  about  two  months  from  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles  to  the  Feast  of  Dedication. 
Where  was  Jesus  during  those  two  months — 
from  the  second  week  of  October  to  the  third 
week  of  December?  Meyer,  Hengstenberg, 
and  others  answer,  In  Jerusalem,  or  its  sub- 
urbs; for  nothing  is  said  of  any  departure 
thence,  or  return  thither.  But,  against  this 
view,  it  has  been  forcibly  urged:  (1)  That 
he  could  not  have  remained  there  in  peace, 
on  account  of  the  bitter  enmity  of  "the  Jews." 
(2)  That  the  references  which  appear  in  the 
following  discourse,  to  what  he  had  said  at 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  are  far  more  natural 
if  we  suppose  that  he  had  been  absent  from 
Jerusalem  two  months,  than  they  are  if  we 
suppose  that  he  had  remained  there  and 
taught,  meanwhile;  for  by  the  former  suppo- 
sition, these  references  were  to  his  last  dis- 
course in  that  place.  And  (3)  that  events  are 
related  in  the  other  Gospels  which  appear  to 
belong  to  just  this  period  of  the  Lord's  min- 
istry. Between  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (Oct. 
11-18,  A.  D.  29,)  and  the  Feast  of  Dedication, 
(Dec.  20-27,  A.  D.  29,)  Dr.  Robinson  places 
the  following  events:  A  lawyer  instructed  by 
parable  ( Luke  lo:  25-37) ;  Jesus  in  the  house  of 
Martha  and  Mary  (Lune  10 :  38-42) ;  the  disciples 
again  taught  how  to  pray  (Luke  11 :  1-12) ;  the  re- 
turn of  the  seventy  (Luke  10 :  17-24)  ;  the  giving  of 
sight  to  a  man  born  blind,  etc.  (John  9: 1-41 ;  10 : 1-21). 
Gardiner  assigns  to  this  period  of  about  two 
months  several  events  and  parables  not  em- 
braced in  Robinson's  list;  but  it  is  not  im- 


portant for  us  to  examine  his  reasons  for  so 
doing. 

22.  And  it  was  at  Jerusalem  the  feast 
of  the  dedication.  This  feast  was  estab- 
lished by  Judas  Maccabaeus,  to  commemorate 
the  cleansing  and  re-consecration  of  the  tem- 
ple after  its  destruction  by  Antiochus  Epiph- 

aneS  (J  Mace.  4  :  50,  .>q.;  2  Mace.  1 :  lo  ;  10  ;  6,  sq.;  Josepbus  "Ant.* 

i2;T,  7.)  It  was  celebrated  eight  days  every 
year,  beginning  with  the  25th  of  Kisleu,  not 
only  in  Jerusalem,  but  in  any  part  of  the 
land,  and  was  an  occasion  of  much  joy  and 
festivity.  The  writer  of  2  Maccabaeus  says  that 
"they  kept  eight  days  with  gladness";  that 
"they  bore  branches  and  fair  boughs,  and 
palms  also,  and  sung  psalms  unto  him  who 
had  given  them  good  success  in  cleansing  his 
place."  (10:6.7.)  Josephus  remarks  that  this 
festival  was  called  "Lights,"  and  that  he 
supposes  the  name  was  given  to  it  from  the 
joy  of  the  nation  at  their  unexpected  liberty. 
In  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  the  "Hallel" 
was  sung  every  day  of  the  feast.  (Smith's 
"Diet,  of  the  Bible,"  Art.  Dedication).  And 
it  Avas  winter.  The  and  is  to  be  omitted, 
and  this  statement  connected  with  the  fol- 
lowing. 

23.  And  Jesus  walked  (was  walking)  in 
the  temple,  in  Solomon's  porch.  The 
descriptive  tense,  was  walking,  shows  that  the 
scene  was  vividly  present  to  the  Evangelist's 
mind  ;  and  the  fact  that  Christ  was  walking  in 
a  covered  porch,  or  arcade,  is  accounted  for 
by  the  season  of  the  j-ear.  This  arcade  was 
on  the  side  of  the  temple  towards  the  east, 
nearest  the  wall  that  overhangs  the  Valley  of 
Kedron,  and  is  said  to  have  been  a  relic  of 
Solomon's  days. — ./o.sf^sAj/s,  "Antiq.,"  20:  9,  7. 
There  is  a  reference  to  the  same  porch  in  Acts 
3:  11.  "The  mention  of  this  particular  part 
of  the  temple  is  one  of  the  traces  of  the  writer 
having  himself  been  an  ej'e-witness;  events 
like  this  no  doubt  impressed  themselves  on  the 
mcmorj',  so  as  never  to  be  forgotten.  (Comp. 
8:  20.)"— Meyer. 

24.  Then   (rather,   therefore)  came  the 


220 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  X. 


25  Jesus  answered  them,  I  told  you,  and  ye  believed 
not:  « the  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name,  they 
bear  witness  of  me. 

26  But  '  ye  believe  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  my 
sheep,  as  I  said  unto  you. 

27  "My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and 
they  follow  me : 

28  And  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life;  and  "ithey 
shall  never  perish,  neither  shall  any  man  pluck  them 
out  of  my  hand. 


25  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly.  Jesus  answered  them, 
I  told  you,  and  ye  believe  not :  the  works  that  I 
do  in  my  Father's  name,  these  bear  witness  of  me. 

26  But  ye  believe  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep. 

27  My   sheep   hear  my   voice,  and  I  know  them,  and 

28  they  follow  me:  and  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life; 
and  they  shall    never   perish,  and   no   one    shall 


aver.  38;  cli.  3  :  2  ;  5:  36 I  ch.  8  :  47  ;  1  John  4:6 c  vtr.  4:  14 d  ch.  6  :  37  ;  17:  11,  12;  18: 


Jews  round  about  him.  Many  of  the 
prominent  men,  who  were,  for  the  most  part, 
opposed  to  Christ,  gathered  around — literally, 
encircled — him,  as  he  was  walking  to  and  fro 
in  the  porch.  And  said  unto  him,  How 
long  dost  thou  make  us  to  doubt  (or,  hold 
us  in  susjjense. — Eev.  Ver. )  ?  If  thou  be  (art) 
the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly.  TheGreek  words 
which  are  translated  hold  us  in  suspense  liter- 
ally signify,  lift  up  our  soul,  or  mind — that 
is,  in  the  present  case,  keep  our  souls  in  a 
state  of  excitement,  by  leaving  a  question 
of  the  highest  interest  unsettled.  But  why 
did  the  Jews  gather  round  Jesus  and  broach 
this  question  ?  It  is  probable  that  during  the 
two  months  of  his  absence  they  had  remained 
divided  in  sentiment,  a  majority  of  them  re- 
jecting the  claims  of  Jesus,  but  some  of  them 
feeling  that  both  his  words  and  his  works 
proved  him  to  be  from  God.  (See  ver.  20,  21.) 
The  former  might  ask  the  question  with  the 
purpose  of  making  his  answer  the  basis  of  ac- 
cusation, and  the  latter  with  the  desire  to  have 
all  doubt  removed  from  their  minds.  At  any 
rate,  they  seek  the  interview  and  propose  the 
question,  which  is  evidence  enough  that  the 
absence  of  Jesus  had  not  diminished  their  in- 
terest in  him. 

25.  I  told  you,  and  ye  believed  (believe) 
not.  That  is,  "I  declared  myself  to  be  the 
Christ,  and  though  I  did  this,  ye  do  not  be- 
lieve." That  he  had  done  this  more  than 
once  is  very  evident  from  the  preceding  nar- 
rative. His  answer  is  therefore  equivalent  to 
a  plain  assertion  of  his  Messiahship,  and  a 
plain  assertion  of  their  unbelief,  together  with 
a  pretty  obvious  allusion  to  either  malice  or 
dullness  on  their  part,  in  making  such  a  de- 
mand. The  works  that  I  do  in  my  Fa- 
ther's name,  they  (or,  these)  bear  wit- 
ness of  me.  To  do  works  in  the  Father's 
name,  is  to  appeal  to  the  Father  in  doing 
them,  or  to  recognize  them  in  some  way  as 
the  Father's  works,  revealing  his  will.     This 


agrees  with  the  representation  of  5:  19,  sq. 
What  the  Father  does,  the  Son  does  in  like 
manner,  and  the  works  of  the  Father  are 
wrought  by  the  Son. 

26.  But  ye  believe  not,  because  ye  are 
not  of  my  sheep.  The  last  words  of  the 
Common  Version  :  As  I  said  unto  you,  are 
not  adequately  supported.  If  they  were  genu- 
ine, they  would  contain  a  distinct  reference  to 
his  discourse,  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles, 
two  months  before.  He  had  then  virtually 
declared  that  they  were  not  his  sheep  (see  ver. 
4,  14),  and  it  was  not  too  much  to  expect  that 
they  would  at  once  recall  to  mind  his  words 
at  that  time.  At  all  events,  the  expression 
my  sheep  recalls  that  discourse.  "The  cir- 
cumstance that  Jesus  should  refer  to  this  alle- 
gorj-,  about  two  months  after  the  date  of  ver. 
1-21,  has  been  used  as  an  argument  against 
the  originality  of  this  discourse  (Strauss  Baur); 
but  it  may  be  simply  accounted  for  by  the  as- 
sumption that  during  the  interval  he  had  had 
no  further  discussions  with  his  hierarchical  op- 
ponents.— Meyer,  freelj'.  Some  of  those  who 
then  listened  to  him  were  now  present,  with 
undiminished  hostility. 

27,  28.  My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I 
know  them,  and  they  follow  nie  :  and  I 
give  unto  them  eternal  life.  The  first 
three  statements  are  almost  verbal  repetitions 
of  what  he  had  s^id  at  the  Feast  of  Taberna- 
cles (see  ver.  14-16),  and  the  last  statement 
was  implied  in  what  he  then  said.  For  if  the 
Good  Shepherd  laj-s  down  his  life  for  the 
sheep,  it  is  that  they  may  not  perish,  but  may 
have  eternal  life.  (Comp.  3:  16.)  And  they 
shall  never  perish,  etc.  That  is,  those  who 
are  true  disciples  of  Christ — being  guided  and 
nourished  by  him,  will  never  be  suffered  to 
perish.  The  blessed  life  which  they  have  be- 
gun to  enjo3'^  will  be  preserved  from  this  time 
forward  forever.  And  no  one,  etc.  They 
are  in  the  hands  of  the  Chief  Shepherd,  and 
no  one,  however  powerful  or  fierce,  can  wrest 


Cii.  X.] 


JOHN. 


221 


29  <»  My  Father,  '  which  gave  them  me,  is  greater  than 
all ;  and  no  man  is  able  to  pluclc  the,)n  out  of  my  Fa- 
ther's hand. 

'M  "  i  and  my  Father  are  one. 


29  snatch  them  out  of  my  hand.  'My  Father,  who 
hath  given  them  unto  me,  is  greater  than  all ;  and 
no  one  is  able  to  snatch  -them  out  of  the  t'ather's 

30  hand.    I  and  the  Father  are  one.    The  Jews  took 


a  oh.  \i:  28. 


.  .6  ch.  17  :  2,  6,  etc c  ch.  17  :  11,  22. 1  Sniiie  ancient  authorities  read,  That  which  my  Path  r  hath  gi\ 

2  Or,  aught. 


them  out  of  that  hand.  The  first  clause  of 
this  verse  appears  to  mean  that  believers  in 
Christ  will  never,  by  their  own  carelessness 
or  ignorance,  lose  that  union  with  him  which 
makes  existence  a  blessing;  and  the  latter, 
that  no  enemy,  however  crafty  or  strong, 
will  succeed  in  destroying  their  life  in  Christ. 
(See  Koin.  8:  81,  sq. )  The  preservation  of  the 
saints  is  distinctly  taught  by  the  Lord  in  this 
passage. 

The  word  perish  is  used  by  Christ  and  by 
Paul  to  denote  an  utter  loss  of  true  life,  or 
blessed  communion  with  God,  and  not  to  de- 
note an  utter  loss  of  being.  Annihilation  is 
nowhere  taught  by  the  sacred  writers.  For 
a  fuller  con.ment  on  the  Greek  expression 
translated  never  (oi  iJ.r} — eis  rbv  aldva),  see  Note 
on  11 :  26. 

29,  30.  My  Father,  which  gave  (rather, 
hath  given)  them  me,  is  greater  than 
all;  and  no  man  (one)  is  able  to  pluck 
them  out  of  my  Father's  hand.  I  and 
my  Father  are  one.  This  is  added  in  con- 
firmation of  the  last  statement:  "No  man 
is  able  to  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand."  For 
by  identifying  his  own  power  with  his 
Father's,  he  pronounces  it  absolute.  In  this 
remarkable  passage  Jesus  claims:  (1)  That 
his  Father  is  the  greatest  of  all  beings— i.  e., 
God  ;  (2)  that  the  sheep  of  which  he  is  speak- 
ing have  been  given  him  by  his  Father;  (3) 
that  no  one  can  pluck  them  out  of  his  Father's 
hand ;  and  (4)  that  in  keeping  them  lue  and 
his  Father  are  one — i.  e.,  one  in  action,  in 
power,  and  therefore  in  essence.  To  be  one 
thing,  (eV),  in  the  sense  demanded  by  the  ar- 
gument, is  to  be  one  in  keeping  the  sheep 
against  all  destroj^ers.  The  action  of  the  Son 
is,  therefore,  declared  to  be  inseparable  from 
that  of  the  Father,  and  one  with  it.  But  if 
their  action  is  one,  their  power  must  be  one; 
for  action  is  but  the  movement  of  power. 
And  if  their  power  is  one,  their  being  or  es- 
sence must  be  one;  for  power  belongs  to 
being.  The  language  of  this  verse  may, 
therefore,  be  said  to  agree  with  the  common 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity;  that  the  Father,  the 
'Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  in  essence  one 


and  the  same,  but  distinguishable  in  a  per- 
sonal respect. 

In  the  expression  greater  than  all,  Meyer 
supposes  that  the  word  all  refers  to  persons, 
and  includes  even  the  Son.  But,  as  the  ob- 
vious scope  of  the  passage  is  to  affirm  the 
oneness  of  the  Son's  preserving  agency  with 
that  of  the  Father,  it  is  unnatural  to  suppose 
that  Jesus  meant  to  separate  himself  from  the 
Father  in  this  clause,  and  associate  himself,  as 
to  greatness,  with  the  inferior  all.  The  only 
evidence  of  his  subordination  to  be  found  in 
this  place  is  in  the  words  my  Father,  since 
sonship  implies  a  certain  subordination  ;  and 
in  the  words  who  has  given  them  to  me, 
since  the  receiver  of  a  kingdom  is,  in  a  certain 
respect,  subordinate  to  the  giver. 

According  to  the  highest  textual  authority, 
the  word  greater  has  a  neuter  form  (fiei^oi/), 
showing  that  the  Saviour's  thought  was  this  : 
"My  Father. .  is  something  greater  than  all," 
that  is,  a  power  greater  than  all.  For  a 
similar  use  of  the  neuter  adjective,  see  Matt. 
12:  6.  Some  editors  make  the  relative  pro- 
noun neuter  also:  "My  Father  which  gave 
them  to  me,  is  greater  than  all";  but  the 
pronoun,  as  Meyer  and  Schaff  suggest,  may 
have  been  changed  by  transcribers,  who 
could  not  understand  how  a  neuter  adjective 
could  agree  with  the  masculine  term  Father. 
But  another  construction  is  certainly  possible, 
viz:  "  That  which  my  Fatlier  hath  given  to 
me,  is  greater  than  all."  (So  N  B*  L.  Tisch, 
Tregel.,  West,  and  Hort,  Alford,  Eevisers, 
margin).  The  meaning  then  would  be,  that 
the  power  given  to  him  by  the  Father  was> 
greater  than  all.  Some  MSS.  read :  "The 
Father,"  instead  of  "My  Father,"  an  unim- 
portant variation. 

"The  doctrine  of  the  saint's  perseverance 
in  holiness  is  here  most  expressly  taught. 
(ver.27-29.)  If  One  of  the  elcct  should  finally 
perish,  it  would  not  only  falsify  the  declara- 
tion here  made  by  Christ,  but  would  be  a  viola- 
tion of  the  compact  between  the  Father  and  the 
Son  (see  6:  37),  and  contrary  to  the  expressly 
declared  will  of  the  Father.  (6:  39.40.)  Yet 
this  great  truth,  which  so  illustrates  the  sov- 


^22 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  X. 


•    31  Then  "  the  Jews  took  up  stones  again  to  stone  him. 

32  Jesus  answered  theru,  Many  good  works  have  I 
shewed  you  from  my  Father ;  lor  which  of  those  works 
do  ye  stone  me? 

33  The  Jews  answered  him,  saying,  For  a  good  work 
we  stone  thee  not;  but  for  blasphemy  ;  and  because  that 
thou,  being  a  man,  ''  makest  thyself  God. 


31  up  stones  again  to  stone  him.    Jesus  answered  them, 

32  Many   good   works   I   have  shewed   you    from    the 
Father;  for  which  of  those  works  do  ye  stone  me? 

33  The  Jews  answered  him,  For  a  good  work  we  stone 
thee  not,  but  for  blasphemy  ;  and  because  that  thou, 


o  ch.  8:  59 6  ch.  5;  18. 


ereign  mercy  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ, 
and  which  is  the  only  sure  foundation  upon 
which  the  believer  rests  his  hope  of  eternal 
life,  must  not  be  abused  to  justify  any  la.xity 
of  effort  on  his  part  to  make  his  calling  and 
election  sure,  by  a  life  of  prayer  and  hol3' 
living,  such  as  becometh  the  disciples  of 
Christ." — Oweriy  ad.  loc. 

31.  Then  the  Jews  (or,  the  Jews  there- 
fore) took  up  stones  again  to  stone  him 
(or,  that  they  might  stone  him).  If  the  word 
therefore  belongs  to  the  genuine  text,— of 
which  there  is  come  doubt, — the  act  of  the 
Jews  is  expressly  declared  to  be  a  consequence 
of  what  Jesus  had  just  said;  but  if  it  does 
not  belong  to  the  text,  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  it  misrepresents  the  connection 
between  the  act  of  the  Jews  and  the  words  of 
Jesus.  The  manner  in  which  he  associated 
himself  with  the  Father,  filled  their  hearts 
with  wrath,  if  not  with  horror.  And  what 
they  did  was  to  lift  up  stones  from  the  ground, 
with  the  intention  of  hurling  them  at  Jesus, 
and  thus  killing  him  upon  the  spot,  without 
even  the  form  of  trial  and  judgment.  (Comp. 
Levit.  24:  10  sq.).  The  word  again,  refers 
without  doubt  to  the  scene  described  in  8:  59. 

But  as  they  were  in  the  act  of  stoning  him, 
they  were  arrested  by  a  remark  of  infinite 
sagacity,  and,  it  may  be,  authority,  compel- 
ing  them  to  turn  their  thoughts  to  what  he 
had  done. 

32.  Jesus  answered  them,  Many  good 
works  have  I  sheAved  you  from  my 
Father.  The  action  of  the  Jews  was  most 
expressive;  it  was  accusation  and  condemna- 
tion and  execution  in  a  breath.  Hence  the 
language  of  Jesus  is  called  an  answer  to  them. 
By  the  term  works,  he  means  "might3' 
works,"  or  miracles;  by  the  term  translated 
§;ood  (icaAo)  he  characterizes  these  miracles  as 
divinely  "fair  and  fit,"  worthy  of  the  highest 
regard;  by  the  expression,  from  my  Father, 
he  reminds  them  that  his  works  are  from  the 
Father,  even  as  he  himself  is  from  the  Father, 
and  that  his  own  action  is  inseparable  from 


the  Father's;  and  by  the  words,  have  I 
shewed  you,  he  aflBrms  that  these  miracles 
were  meant  for  "signs"  to  them:  they  were 
significant  of  the  Saviour's  authority  as  well 
as  goodness.  For  Avhich  of  those  works 
do  ye  stone  me?  There  is  deep  and  holy 
irony  in  this  question.  For  the  Lord  knew 
that  it  was  his  words  that  had  provoked  their 
wrath ;  but  he  also  knew  that  his  works  and 
his  words  signified  one  and  the  same  thing, 
brought  one  and  the  same  message,  asserted 
one  and  the  same  authority,  and  that  in  con- 
demning hiin  for  his  words  they  were  also 
condemning  him  for  his  works.  He,  there- 
fore, assumes  that  they  are  intelligent  and 
self-consistent,  enraged  at  his  works,  which 
speak  the  same  language  as  his  words.  If 
there  was,  as  we  concede,  a  species  of  irony  or 
mockery  in  this,  it  was  profoundly  just,  fitted 
to  open  their  ej'es  and  deter  them  from  the 
awful  crime  they  were  at  the  point  of  com- 
mitting. 

The  word  rendered  which  (-nhiov)  cannot  be 
casilj*  reproduced  in  English,  without  resort- 
ing to  paraphrase:  for  it  suggests  quality  as 
well  as  distinction.  Thus:  "What  is  the 
character  of  that  one  of  those  works  on  ac- 
count of  which  ye  are  about  to  stone  me?" 
or,  "Of  those  works  what  is  the  character  of 
the  one  for  which  ye  are  about  stoning  me?" 
This  was  a  question  that  might  well  make 
them  pause. 

33.  For  a  good  work  Ave  stone  thee 
not;  but  for  blasphemy;  and  because 
that  thou,  being  a  man,  makest  thyself 
God.  Are  two  oflTences  here  charged  against 
Jesus,  or  only  one?  Lange  says,  two:  "They 
reproach  him  with  two  things:  first,  that  he 
places  God  on  a  par  with  himself — and  this 
they  call  blasphemy  ;  secondly,  that  he  makes 
himself  God — and  in  this  they  think  they 
recognize  the  false  prophet."  But  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  discriminate  between  these  two  things, 
and  better  to  suppose,  with  Meyer,  that  but 
one  oflfence  is  charged.  According  to  this 
view,  "And  connects  with  the  general  charge 


Ch.  X.] 


JOHN. 


223 


34  Jesus  answered  (hem,  "  Is  it  not  written  in  your 
law,  I  said,  Ye  are  f?(wls? 

35  If  he  calle<l  them  gods,  *  unto  wliom  the  word  of 
God  came,  and  tlie  scripture  cannot  lie  liroken  ; 

36  Say  ye  of  him,  i;  whom  the  Father  liath  sanctified, 
and  <i  sent  into  the  world,  Tliou  bla-sphemest ;  «  because 
I  said,  I  am /the  Sou  of  God? 


34  being  a  man,  makest  thyself  (iod.    Jesus  answered 
them.  Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said,  Ye  are 

35  gods?    If  he  called  them  gods,  unto  whom  the  word 
of  tjod  came  (and  the  scripture  cannot  be  broken), 

36  say  ye  of  him,   whom   the  Father  'sanctified  and 
sent  into  Ihc  world.  Thou  blaspheniest ;   because  I 


aPs.  8-2:6 I  Rom.   13:   1 c  ch.  6:  27 d  ch.  3:  17  , 


a  more  exact  definition  of  that  on  whicli  it  is 
based."  Tlius:  "We  stone  thee  for  blas- 
phemy, and  indeed  because  thou,  being  man, 
makest  thyself  God."  Whether  they  under- 
stood him  to  claim  essential,  or  only  dynami- 
cal unity  with  the  Father,  is  of  little  moment ; 
for  they  were  certainly  in  a  mood  to  pro- 
nounce either  claim  blasphemous,  and  to  re- 
gard either  as  a  claim  to  being  God.  But 
when  he  said,  "I  and  my  Father  are  one" 
(thing),  it  is  probable  that  they  supposed  him 
to  assert  his  essential  oneness  with  the  Father. 
"The  word  rendered  for  (before  blas- 
phemy), is  not  the  causal,  'on  account  of,' 
which  we  have  in  the  last  (preceding)  verse, 
but  'concerning,'  the  technical  form  for  an 
indictment.  For  the  Mosaic  law  concerning 
blasphemy,  see  Lev.  24:  10-16." — Watkins. 

It  is  clear  that  the  Jews  were  determined 
not  to  consider  the  words  of  Jesus  in  the  light 
of  his  works,  which  proved  that  God  was  with 
him,  but  to  consider  them  alone,  and  on  the 
basis  of  the  assumption  that  he  was  merely 
human — a  man,  and  nothing  more.  It  is  also 
plain  that  Jesus  adapted  his  answer  to  their 
state  of  mind  and  habits  of  reasoning,  meet- 
ing them  on  their  own  ground,  without  yield- 
ing a  particle  of  his  own  claim.  Only  by 
bearing  in  mind  these  points,  can  one  perceive 
the  wisdom  of  Christ's  response.  They  had 
formulated,  as  it  were,  their  legal  accusation, 
and  he  tests  it  by  an  argument  founded  on  the 
language  of  their  law. 

34.  Is  it  not  Avritten  in  your  law,  I  said, 
Ye  are  gods?  By  your  law,  is  meant  the 
Old  Testament  (comp.  12:  34;  15:  25;  Rom.  8: 
19  ;  1  Cor.  14  :  21) ;  and  the  passage  here  cited 
is  in  Ps.  82:  6.  The  Psalm  is  addressed  to 
unjust  judges  and  rulers  of  Israel.  Accord- 
ing to  the  original  idea  of  the  theocratic  na- 
tion, these  judges  were  to  be  representatives 
of  God,  acting  for  him,  and  doing  his  will. 
(Comp.  Ex.21:  6;  22:  8,  28;  2Chron.l9:  5-7.) 
In  the  Psalm,  God  refers  to  his  language,  by 
Moses,  as  having  been  virtually  addressed  to 
the  unjust  rulers  of  the  Psalmist's  day.     "I 


myself  have  said.  Ye  are  gods,  and  sons  of  the 
Most  High,  all  of  you ;  yet  surelj^  as  men,  ye 
shall  die,"  etc. 

35.  If  he — or  the  Scripture — called  them 
gods,  unto  whom  the  \vord  of  God  came. 
The  phrase  unto  whom  the  word  of  God 
came,  does  not  assign  a  reason  why  they  were 
called  gods,  but  mentions  a  circumstance,  not- 
withstanding which  they  were  so  called. 
Though  they  were  persons  to  whom  God's 
message  was  sent,  instead  of  being  persons  en- 
trusted with  his  message  to  others,  they  were 
called  gods.  And  the  Scripture  cannot  be 
broken.  Meyer  connects  this  with  the  pre- 
ceding clause,  and  makes  it  depend  upon  if 
(ei).  "If— as  is  true — it  called  them  gods  to 
whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and  [if]  the 
Scripture  cannot  be  broken."  But  most  in- 
terpreters regard  this  statement  as  parenthetic, 
calling  to  mind  an  admitted  truth  on  which 
the  validity  of  his  argument  rested.  And  the 
more  common  view  is  probably  correct.  Je- 
sus here  affirms  the  permanent  authority  and 
divine  truth  of  the  Scripture  in  question — 
that  is,  the  passage  from  the  Psalms.  Can- 
not be  broken  (or,  loosened) — i.  c,  cannot  be 
deprived  of  its  validity.  And  if  this  Scrip- 
ture cannot  be  annulled,  there  is  much  reason 
to  believe  that  the  same  is  true  of  all  other 
Scriptures;  especially  when  we  call  to  mind 
the  circumstance  that  Jesus  always  speaks 
with  reverence  of  the  Old  Testament.  In- 
deed, it  is  possible  that  the  Scripture  here 
means  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole. 

36.  Say  ye  of  him,  Avhom  the  Father 
(omit  hath)  sanctified,  and  sent  into  the 
world.  Thou  blasphemest,  because  I 
said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God?  "How  could 
they  charge  him  with  blasphemj'  in  claim- 
ing to  be  the  Son  of  God,  when  their  own 
judges  had  been  styled  gods.  .  .  .  Their  office 
was  but  for  a  time ;  they  were  mortal  men,  j'et 
wearing,  by  divine  permission,  a  divine  name. 
He  had  been  with  the  Father  before  he  came 
into  the  world,  was  by  him  sealed  and  set 
apart  ('sanctified'),  andsenttobe,  notajudge, 


224 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  X. 


37  "  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  belive  me  not. 

38  But  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  *■  believe  the 
works;  that  ye  may  know,  and  believe,  <^that  the  Father 
is  in  me,  and  I  in  him. 

39  d  Therefore  they  sought  again  to  take  him  ;  but  he 
escaped  out  of  their  hand, 

40  And  went  away  again  beyond  Jordan  into  the 
place  « where  John  at  first  baptized ;  and  there  he 
abode. 


37  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God?    If  I  do  not  the  works 

38  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not.  But  if  I  do  them, 
though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works;  that 
ye  may  know  and  understand  that  the  Father  is  in 

39  me,  and  I  in  the  Father.  They  sought  again  to 
take  him:  and  he  went  forth  out  of  their  hand. 

40  And  he  went  away  again  beyond  Jordan  into  the 
place  where  John  was  at  the  first  baptizing ;  and  there 


och.  15:  24 b  oh.  5:  36;  14  :  10,  11 c  oh.  14:  10,  11 ;  17:  21..   .d  ch.  7  :  30,44  ;  8  :  59 e  oh.  1:  28. 


but  the  Christ;  not  one  of  many  sons,  but 
emphatically  the  Son  of  God— the  King  of  an 
everlasting  kingdom.  Both  in  his  office  and 
j  1  his  person  he  has  far  more  right  to  the  title, 
'Son  of  God,'  than  they  have  to  that  of 
'gods.'" — Perowne,  on  Ps.  82:  6.  The  inter- 
rogative form  characterizes  their  charge  as  one 
that  needs  only  to  be  stated  in  order  to  be  re- 
jected. 

37.  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father, 
believe  me  not.  A  remarkable  word,  show- 
ing that  divine  works,  or  miracles,  were  just 
what  might  naturally  be  expected  of  the  Son 
of  God,  and  that  they  were,  in  their  place,  a 
necessary  part  of  the  evidence  on  which  Je- 
sus rested  his  claim  to  be  received  as  the  Son 
of  God.  By  it  he  authorized  and  commanded 
the  Pharisees  to  reject  him  if  he  failed  to  do 
such  works  as  only  God  could  do.  If  any 
evidence  were  necessary  to  prove  that  Jesus 
did  not  intend  to  lower,  by  his  criticism  of 
their  charge,  the  claim  which  he  had  made  by 
calling  himself  the  Son  of  God,  and  by  say- 
ing I  and  my  Father  are  one,  it  is  furnished 
by  this  verse  and  the  next  following. 

38.  But  if  I  do  [them),  though  ye  believe 
not  me,  believe  the  works.— That  is, 
though  1113'  words  do  not  come  to  you  with  a 
self-evidencing  power,  nor  my  spirit  and  life 
by  themselves  win  your  confidence  and  con- 
vince j'ou  that  I  am  all  that  I  profess  to  be, 
yet  believe  at  least  what  my  works  proclaim 
— that  ye  may  know  and  believe  (or,  un- 
derstand.) Understand  is  a  translation  of  the 
best  supported  text.  The  former  verb  (know) 
denotes  a  single,  accomplished  act;  the  latter 
a  continuous  exercise.  That  the  Father  is 
in  me,  and  I  in  him  (or,  the  Father.)  For 
this  is  no  more  than  could  be  certainly  con. 
eluded  and  known  from  the  works  of  Christ, 
when  fairly  interpreted  by  the  light  eman- 
ating from  them,  and  from  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case.  But,  as  Jesus  here  as- 
sumes, this  inter-penetration  and  mutual 
indwelling  of  Father  and  Son  is  not  all  that 
his  words    have    taught.      Something  more 


than  this  was  meant  by  the  declaration,  "I 
and  my  Father  are  one,"  to  wit:  that  in  their 
power,  in  their  action,  and  in  that  which  is 
the  seat  of  power  and  the  source  of  action, 
their  mysterious  and  divine  essence,  they  are 
one.  This  could  only  be  learned  from  the 
testimony  of  Christ  himself. 

In  translating  the  last  clause,  we  follow  the 
best  authorities  by  giving,  instead  of  in  him, 
in  the  Father ;  though  it  is  one  of  a  multi- 
tude of  instances  where  the  meaning  is  very 
slightly  affected,  if  at  all,  by  the  change  of 
text. 

39.  Therefore  they  sought  (or,  were 
seeking)  again  to  take  him.  Not  now  for 
the  purpose  of  stoning  him  on  the  spot,  but 
rather  to  have  him  in  their  power  with  a 
view  to  his  destruction  either  with  or  without 
a  regular  trial.  More  than  this  cannot  cer- 
tainlj'  be  inferred  from  the  Evangelist's  re- 
mark; but  this  he  depicts  as  if  he  were  an 
eye-witness,  and  were  keenlj-  watching  their 
movements,  as  they  were  trying  to  lay  hold 
of  him.  Tischendorf  omits  the  word  mean- 
ing again,  from  the  Greek  text,  but  without 
sufficient  reason.  It  refers,  probably,  to  the 
scenes  described  in  7:  30,  32,44.  But  (and) 
he  escaped  out  of  their  hand.  Literally,  he 
went  forth  out  of  their  hand.  Meyer  says: 
"oM<  of  their  hands,  which  are  conceived  as 
already  stretched  out  after  him."  But  is  it 
not  an  objection  to  this  that  the  sacred  writer 
uses  the  singular,  hand,  instead  of  the  plural, 
"hands"?  And  is  it  not  better  to  take  the 
word  hand  as  a  figurative  designation  of 
their  power?  How  Jesus  escaped,  the  writer 
does  not  relate,  and  an3'  conjecture  of  ours 
would  be  worthless. 

40-42.  Temporary  Sojourn  in  Perea. 

Jesus  had  probably'  been  traveling  and 
preaching  and  working  miracles  in  Perea, 
before  his  appearance  at  the  Feast  of  Dedica- 
tion in  Jerusalem.  This  would  account  for 
again,  in  ver.  40. 

40.  And  went  away  again  beyond  Jor- 
I  dan,  into  the  place  where  John  at  first 


Ch.  XL] 


JOHN. 


225 


41  And  many  resorted  unto  hiiu,  and  said,  John  did  i  41  he  abode.  And  many  came  unto  him;  and  they  said, 
no  miracle;  "but  all  things  that  John  spake  of  this  !  John  indeed  did  no  sign:  but  all  things  whatsoever 
man  were  true.  42  John  spake  of  this  man  were  true.    And  many  be- 

42  '  And  many  believed  on  him  there.  1       lieved  on  him  there. 


N 


OW  a  certain  man  was  sick,  named  Lazarus,  of  Beth- 
any, the  town  of  <^  Mary  and  her  sister  Martha. 


CHAPTEK    XI. 

1     Now  a  certain  man  was  sick,  Lazarus  of  Bethany, 


ach.3:30....ich.  8:  30;  11:  45.... c  Luke  10:  38,  .S9. 


baptized  ;  and  there  he  abode.  The  Jews 
had  rejected  him  in  a  conclusive  manner,  and 
it  was  tlierefi)re  wor.se  than  useless  to  remain 
in  the  capital.  But,  "his  hour"  to  be  lifted 
up  on  the  cross  was  not  yet  come.  So  he 
withdrew  from  Jerusalem  to  a  region  where 
the  people  would  be  benefited  by  his  presence 
and  ministry  It  is  commonly  assumed  that 
the  particular  place  to  which  he  repaired  was 
the  Bethubara,  or  Bethany,  spoken  of  by  the 
Evangelist  in  1;  28.  But  this  is  not  perfectly 
certain  ;  for  the  place  where  the  deputation  of 
Pharisees  from  Jerusalem  met  John  may  not 
have  been  the  place  where  he  at  first  bap- 
tized. Bethany  and  Enon  are,  indeed,  the 
only  two  places  named  by  the  Evangelist  in 
connection  with  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism by  John,  and  it  is  evident  that  Enon  was 
visited  after  Bethany;  but  the  narrative  of 
this  Evangelist  is  so  fragmentary  that  we  can- 
not regard  it  as  complete  in  itself,  with  no 
references  to  events  not  particularly  described. 
Yet  the  place  to  which  he  now  repaired  may 
have  been  the  Bethany  of  1 :  28,  and  there  is 
at  least  some  probability  that  it  was. 

41.  And  many  resorted  {came)  unto  him, 
and  said  (or,  were  saying).  The  last  verb  is 
in  the  descriptive  tense,  betokening  either  the 
writer's  presence,  or  the  frequent  recurrence 
of  this  remark.  John  {indeed)  did  no  mir- 
acle (or,  sign).  "A  characteristic  feature  of 
the  history  of  John,  which,  in  this  respect 
also,  has  remained  free  from  fanciful  addi- 
tions."— Meyer.  It  was  natural  for  the  peo- 
ple of  this  region  to  contrast  the  ministry  of 
John  with  that  of  Jesus.  They  had  been 
greatly  moved  by  the  preaching  of  the  mighty 
harbinger  of  Christ,  and  they  now  compared 
his  words  respecting  the  Messiah  with  what 
they  had  seen  and  heard.  But  all  things 
that  John  spake  of  this  man  were  true. 
The  Baptist  had  distinctly  asserted  the  supe- 
rior greatness  of  the  Messiah.  And  as  they 
heard  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  or  witnessed 
them,  the  fulfillment  by  him  of  John's  word 


became  a  ground  of  faith — an  additional  rea- 
son  why   they  should  trust  in  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah. 
42.  And  many  believed  on  him  there. 

"Jesus  was  reaping,"  as  Bengel  says,   "the 
posthumous  fruit  of  the  Baptist's  work." 


Ch.  11 :  1-44.  Lazakus  Kaised  from 
THE  Dead. 

1-16.  Preliminary  Narrative. 

1.  Now  a  certain  man.  The  connective 
now,  or  hut  (5e),  is  used  because  the  sickness 
and  death  of  Lazarus  led  to  an  interruption 
of  the  Lord's  sojourn  in  Perea.  The  name 
Lazarus  is  supposed  to  be  a  Greek  modifica- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  Eleazar.  It  is  applied  in 
this  chapter  to  the  (probably)  younger  brother 
of  Martha  and  Mary;  and  in  the  Saviour's 
parable  preserved  by  Luke  (16:20-25),  to  the 
beggar  who  was  laid  at  the  rich  man's  door. 
The  parable  is  thought  by  many  to  have  been 
spoken  by  Christ  about  this  time  in  Perea ; 
and  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  connect  the 
poor  man  of  the  parable  with  the  one  who 
was  now  sick.  But  there  is  no  evidence  of 
any  connection  between  the  two.  Nor  is 
there  any  sufficient  reason  for  conjecturing 
that  he  was  the  young  man  who  came  eagerly 
to  Jesus,  and  was  loved  by  him,  but  went 
away  sorrowful,  because  he  was  very  rich. 
(Luke  18: 18-27.)  Morc  plausiblc,  but  at  the  same 
time  wholly  incapable  of  verification,  is  the 
hypothesis  that  the  young  man  who  followed 
Jesus,  having  "a  linen  cloth  cast  about  his 
naked  body"  (Mark u: 51),  was  Lazarus.  The 
best  interpreters  now  agree  that  the  two  Greek 
prepositions  {airh  and  «),  the  one  before  Beth- 
any, and  the  other  before  the  village,  etc., 
denote  the  same  relation;  so  that  the  latter 
clause  is  merely  explanatory  of  the  former, 
distinguishing  this  Bethany  from  another 
Bethany,  on  the  east  side  of  the  Jordan. 
Bethany,  the  village  of  Mary  and  Martha, 
was  the  home  and  native  place  of  Lazarus. 
It  was  afterwards  kniown  among  Christians 


226 


JOHN. 


Ch.  XT.] 


2  ("It  was  that  Mary  which  anointed  the  Lord  with 
ointment,  and  wiped"  his  feet  with  her  hair,  whose 
brother  Lazarus  was  sick.) 

3  Therefore  his  sisters  sent  unto  him,  saying,  Lord, 
behold,  he  whom  thou  lovest  is  sick. 

4.  When  Jesus  heard  that,  he  said.  This  sickness  is 
not  unto  death,  >>  but  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  Son 
of  God  might  be  gloriiied  thereby. 

5  Now  Jesus  loved  Martha,  and  her  sister,  and  Laz- 
arus. 


2  of  the  village  of  Mary  and  her  sister  Martha.  And 
it  was  that  Mary  who  anointed  the  Lord  with  oint- 
ment,  and   wiped   his    feet   with    her    hair,   whose 

3  brother  Lazarus  was  sick.  The  sisters  therefore 
sent  unto  him,  saying.  Lord,  behold,  he  whom  thou 

4  lovest  is  sick.  But  when  Jesus  heard  it,  he  said, 
This  sickness  is  not  unto  death,  but  for  the  glory 
of  God,  that  the  son  of  God  may  be  gjorified  there- 

5  by.    Now  Jesus  loved  Martha,  and  her  sister,  and 


a  Matt.  26  :  7  ;  Mark  14  ;  3  ;  ch.  12  :  3. . .  .6  cli.  9  :  3 ; 


as  the  village  of  Mary  and  Martha,  at  least 
down  to  the  time  when  this  Gospel  went  into 
circulation ;  at  some  later  period  it  took  the 
name  of  Lazarus,  and  is  now  called  El-Azi- 
rieh,  or  El-Lazirieh,  from  El-Azir,  the  Arabic 
form  of  Lazarus. 

2.  It  Avas  that  (or,  ike)  3Iary  which 
anointed  the  Lord  Avith  ointment,  etc. 
Tliis  explanation  distinguishes  the  Mary  in 
question  from  others,  and  at  the  same  time 
accounts  for  iter  being  named,  in  this  connec- 
tion, before  Martha  (ver.i),  her  elder  sister. 
(See  ver.  5.)  By  reason  of  her  act  of  love, 
referred  to  in  this  verse,  and  related  more 
fully  in  chap.  12:  1-8,  this  Mary  was  well 
known  and  highly  honored  by  the  early  dis- 
ciples. But  there  is  no  valid  reason  for  the 
somewhat  current  belief  that  she  was  the 
woman  who  is  mentioned  by  Luke  (Tise.sq.)  as 
a  sinner,  though  the  act  of  the  one  was  so 
similar  to  that  of  the  other,  for  the  act  was 
one  that  might  not  unnaturally  be  repeated; 
or  for  the  opinion  that  either  of  these  was  iden- 
tical with  Mary  Magdalene.  (See  Articles 
on  Lazarus,  and  on  the  several  Marys,  in 
Smith's  "Diet,  of  the  Bible,"  Am.  ed.) 

3.  Therefore  his  sisters  sent  unto  him, 
saying.  Lord,  etc.  Therefore  represents 
this  act  as  a  consequence  of  the  facts  just 
stated,  namely,  the  sickness  of  Lazarus,  and 
the  affectionate  confidence  which  the  sisters 
had  in  Christ,  as  illustrated  by  the  well  known 
incident  referred  to.  Their  message  was  a 
beautiful  expression  of  this  confidence.  Their 
request  was  delicately  conveyed  by  the  sim- 
ple statement  of  their  brother's  sickness,  and 
their  plea  as  finely  chosen  and  expressed — 
whom  thou  lovest.  "We  can  readily  believe 
that  this  message  was  the  language  of  Mary. 
Perhaps  they  hesitated  to  ask  the  Lord  to  visit 
Bethany,  because  they  were  aware  of  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Pharisees,  to  laj'  hold  of  him  and 
put  him  to  death.  At  all  events,  they  said 
jnst  enough  to  show  their  unreserved  confi- 
dence in  him. 


4.  When  (or,  but  when)  Jesus  heard 
that  (better,  it),  he  said — in  the  presence  of 
the  messenger  and  of  his  disciples — this 
sickness  is  not  unto  death.  An  expres- 
sion which  might  be  easily  misunderstood  at 
the  moment,  but  which  really  affirmed,  as  the 
event  proved,  that  in  the  divine  plan  the  final 
issue  of  this  sickness  would  not  be  death. 
But  for  the  glory  of  God.  In  some  definite 
and  remarkable  manner  the  glory  of  God  was 
to  be  revealed  by  nietins  of  this  sickness. 
This,  instead  of  death,  was  the  ultimate  pur- 
pose of  it.  (Comp.  9:  3,  4.)  But  with  this 
was  embraced  another  end,  viz:  that  the 
Son  of  God  might  (or,  v^ay)  be  glorified 
thereby.  The  glorifying  of  God  is  in  order 
to  the  glorifying  of  the  Son  of  God  ;  for  when 
the  one  is  glorified,  so  also  is  the  other. 
Thereby  means  by  this  sickness. 

5.  Now  Jesus  loved  3Iartha,  and  her 
sister,  and  Lazarus.  "Happy  family,"' 
says  Bengel.  But  the  reason  for  the  insertion 
of  this  remark  in  this  place  is  not  perfectly 
certain.  Mej-er  supposes  that  it  is  introduced 
to  account  for  the  consolator3^  declaration  of 
ver.  4.  Jesus  loved  them,  and  therefore  sug- 
gested to  them  enigmatically  the  blessed  issue 
of  this  sickness.  When  this  remark  (ver.  4) 
was  reported  to  the  sisters,  Lazarus  was  prob- 
ably dead  ;  but  it  may  have  been  pondered  in 

i  their  hearts,  and  by  its  gracious  purport  they 
I  may  have  been  comforted  in  some  degree. 
i  Godet,  and  others,  however,  suppose  that  this 
I  remark  of  the  Evangelist  is  anticipatorj'  of 
i  ver.  7,  explaining  why,  though  he  tarried  for 
I  a  time  in  Perea,  he  said:  "Let  us  go  into 
I  Judea  again."  The  latter  is,  on  the  whole, 
I  more  probable  than  the  former,  especially  in 
1  view  of  the  Greek  words,  (5e)  noAV,  ver.  5,  and 
.  {iniv)  indeed,  ver.  6.  The  word  loved  (iyaTra) 
!  is  not  the  same  in  this  verse  as  in  ver.  3.  ((^lAei?). 
j  It  denotes  a  high  moral  and  religious  affec- 
tion, and  is  used  to  express  the  love  of  God 
[  to  men  and  the  love  of  Christians  to  God 
'  and  to  one  another.     The  word  used  by  the 


Ch.  XI.] 


JOHN. 


227 


6  When  he  had  heard  therefore  that  he  was  sick,  "  he 
abiiide  two  days  still  in  the  same  i>lace  where  he  was. 

7  Then  alter  that  saith  he  to  hU  disciples,  Let  us  go 
into  Judea  again. 

8  His  disciples  say  unto  him.  Master,  'the  .lews  of 
late  sought  to  stone  thee ;  and  goest  thou  thither  again  ? 

9  Jesus  answered,  Are  there  not  twelve  hours  in  the 


6  Lazarus.  When  therefore  he  beard  that  he  was 
sick,  he  abode  at  that  time  two  days  in  the  place 

7  where   he   was.     Then    after    this   he    saith   to  the 

8  disciples.  Let  us  go  into  Judiea  again.  The  disci- 
ples say  unto  him.  Rabbi,  the  Jews  were  but  now 
seeking    to    stone    thee;    and    goest    thou    thither 

9  again?     Jesus    answered,    Are    there    not    twelve 


a  ah.  10:  40 6  cb.  10:31. 


sisters   (ver.  3)  denotes  warm  personal   attach- 
ment. 

6.  When  he  had  heard  therefore  that 
he  was  sick,  etc. — literally,  when  therefore 
he  heard.,  etc.  This  part  of  Christ's  conduct 
has  been  pronounced  unnatural,  unaccount- 
able, and  a  clear  proof  that  the  whole  narra- 
tive is  worthless  in  a  historical  respect. 
"Why,"  it  is  asked,  "must  Lazarus  die,  in 
order  that  Jesus  might  have  some  one  to  raise 
from  the  dead?  Why  did  he  not  from  a  dis- 
tance rebuke  the  disease  and  prevent  the 
death  of  Lazarus,  selecting  some  other  person 
already  dead  to  be  raised?"  In  answer  to 
such  objections,  we  may  refer,  with  Meyer, 
to  verse  4,  "according  to  which  Jesus  was 
conscious  of  its  being  the  divine  xvill  that  the 
miracle  should  be  performed  precisely  under 
the  circumstances  and  at  the  fime  at  which 
it  actual!}'  was  performed.  (Comp.  2:  4)." 
Further,  it  iiiay  have  been  already,  when  the 
message  reached  Jesus,  too  late  for  him  to 
save  the  life  of  his  friend  by  a  cure  of  the 
disease.  For  Lazarus  was  probably  now 
dead,  and,  indeed,  by  the  custom  of  the  East, 
laid  in  the  tomb.  For  Lazarus  had  been  dead 
four  days  when  he  was  recalled  to  life.  (ver.  39.) 
He  must,  therefore,  have  died  soon  after  the 
messenger  of  the  sisters  left  them  to  go  to 
Jesus  beyond  the  Jordan.  The  journey  must 
have  occupied  about  one  clay,  then  Jesus  re- 
mained where  he  was  two  days,  and  the  fourth 
day  was  spent  in  returning  to  Bethany.  Ac- 
cordingly, it  is  not  surprising  that  Christ 
abode  yet  two  days  in  the  place  where  he 
was;  for,  as  he  purposed  to  raise  Lazarus 
from  the  dead,  it  was  important  to  defer  this 
act  till  there  could  be  no  possible  doubt  of  his 
death.  Besides,  miracles  were  not  wrought 
by  Christ  irrespective  of  moral  conditions; 
and  fit  opportunities  for  doing  such  a  work  as 
it  was  God's  will  that  he  should  now  do,  may 
not  have  been  so  numerous  as  some  imagine. 
Again,  he  may  have  had  important  spiritual 
work  to  do  in  Perea — work  which  he  could 
not  leave  unfinished  for  the  sake  of  repairing 
to  Bethany  sooner  than  he  did. 


7.  Then  after  that  (or,  this)  saith  he  to 
his  disciples,  Let  us  go  into  Judea  again. 

This  was  doubtless  said  to  prepare  the  way  for 
a  more  definite  explanation.  Hence  .Judea  is 
mentioned  instead  of  Bethany.  And  by  Ju- 
dea, the  disciples  probably  understood  Jeru- 
salem and  the  surrounding  villages,  where 
Christ  had  been  accustomed  to  preach  the 
gospel  of  the  kingdom,  and  to  do  mighty 
works.  It  was  not  long  since  he  had  gone 
thither  at  the  Feast  of  Dedication,  and  had 
encountered  deadly  hostility ;  yet  now  he 
proposes  to  visit  the  same  region  again,  with 
his  disciples.     But  they  remonstrate. 

8.  Master,  the  Jews  of  late,  etc. ;  or, 
Rabbi.,  the  Jews  were  but  noxo  seeking  to  stone 
thee,  etc.  The  scene  of  peril  from  which  he 
had  escaped,  that  he  might  depart  to  the  other 
side  of  the  Jordan,  is  brought  vividly  to  mind 
by  his  proposal ;  and  they  wonder  at  his  pur- 
pose to  venture  once  more  into  the  jaws  of 
destruction — into  the  stronghold  of  his  im- 
placable foes.  Their  principal  anxiety  is, 
doubtless,  for  his  safety,  but  they  are  not 
wholly  free  from  solicitude  cuncerning  them- 
selves (ver.  16);  for  they  know  enough  of  hu- 
man nature  to  suspect  that  the  life  of  their 
Master  would  not  be  taken  without  some  risk 
to  their  own.  The  adverb  of  time,  of  late 
(I'vi'),  is  commonly  translated  nov),  but  by  rea- 
son of  its  position,  it  is  emphatic  in  this  verse, 
and  is  fairly  represented  by  even  now;  or  just 
now.  Interpreters  have  sometimes  inferred 
from  it  that  only  a  very  short  time  had  elapsed 
since  Jesus  came  to  Perea;  but  the  inference 
is  by  no  means  necessary.  For  as  the  disci- 
ples recalled  the  peril  of  their  Lord  in  Jeru- 
salem, at  the  Feast  of  Dedication,  it  might 
naturally  have  seemed  to  them  nearer  than  it 
was.  The  days  had  passed  swiftly  since  they 
had  reached  a  place  of  safetj',  and  probably 
a  period  of  several  weeks  had  passed  since 
their  return  to  Perea.  (See  10:  41.) 

9,  10.  Are  there  not  twelve  hours  in 
(or,  of)  the  day?  That  is,  of  the  day,  as 
contrasted  with  the  night.  The  form  of  the 
question  in  Greek  presupposes  an  aflSrmative 


228 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XI. 


day?    « If  any  man  walk  in  the  day,  he  stunibleth  not, 
because  he  seeth  the  light  of  this  world. 

10  But  <■  if  a  man  walk  in  the  night,  he  stumbleth, 
because  there  is  no  light  in  him. 

11  These  things  said  he:  and  after  that  he  saith  unto 
them,  Our  friend  Lazarus  ■'sleepeth;  but  I  go,  that  I 
may  awake  him  out  of  sleep. 

12  Then  saia  his  disciples.  Lord,  if  he  sleep,  he  shall 
do  well. 


hours  in  the  day?    If  a  man  walk  in  the  day,  ha 
stumbleth  not,  because  he  seeth  the  light  of  this 

10  world.      But    if   a    man    walk    in    the    night,    he 

11  stumbleth,  because  the  light  is  not  in  him.  These 
things  spake  he:  and  after  this  he  saith  unto 
them,  Our  friend  Lazarus  is  fallen  asleep;  but  I  go, 

12  that  I  may  awake  him  out  of  sleep.  The  disciples 
therefore  said  unto  him,  Lord,  if  he  is  fallen  asleep, 


a  oh.  9:  i 5  ch.  12:  35.... c  So  Dent.  31 :  16;  Dan.  12:2;  Matt.  9:24;  Acts  7: 


1  Cor.  15:18,  51. 


answer.  If  any  man  walk  in  the  day,  etc. 
By  this  illustration,  Jesus  reminds  his  disci- 
ples of  a  great  law  of  life  and  action  which  he 
is  observing.  He  reminds  them  that  he  is  walk- 
ing in  the  light;  that  the  day  of  his  Messianic 
work  is  not  yet  closed  ;  that  he  sees  clearly,  as 
by  the  light  of  the  sun,  all  the  perils  and  ob- 
stacles in  the  way  of  his  proposed  return  to 
Judea ;  and  that  he  can  go  without  harm.  He 
also  reminds  them  that  he  is  perfectly  aware 
of  the  perils  of  darkness— of  the  dangers  into 
which  one  falls  when  his  walk  is  untimely, 
and  his  hours  of  service  are  passed.  Meyer 
explains  the  allegory  thus:  "The  time  ap- 
pointed to  me  by  God  for  working  is  not  yet 
elapsed ;  as  long  as  it  lasts,  no  one  can  do  any- 
thing to  me;  but  when  it  shall  have  come  to 
an  end,  I  shall  Ml  into  the  hands  of  my  ene- 
mies, like  him  who  walketh  in  the  night,  and 
stumbleth,  because  he  is  without  light."  We 
doubt  whether  Jesus  meant  to  apply  the  latter 
part  of  the  illustration.  He  did  not  go  blindly 
or  darkly  to  the  cross.  He  "laid  down  his 
life"  as  truly  as  he  submitted  to  hunger  and 
thirst  and  weariness.  (Comp.  10:  17,  18.)  To 
see  the  li^ht  of  this  world,  is  equivalent 
to  seeing  by  the  light  of  the  world — i.  e.,  of 
the  sun.  Whether  the  expression,  there  is 
no  lij^ht  in  him,  means  any  more  than  "the 
light  is  not  in  his  eyes  or  possession,"  is  doubt- 
ful;  it  may  possibly  mean,  "he  is  not  con- 
scious of  the  light"— i.  e.,  of  the  effect  of  it, 
so  that  he  may  be  guided  by  it. 

11.  Our  friend  Lazarus  sleepeth  (lit., 
perhaps,  is  asleep),  etc.  An  interval  had 
passed  after  the  remark  of  verses  9,  10,  and 
this  is  an  explanation  of  his  reason  for  going 
again  into  Judea.  Meyer  assumes  that  Laz- 
arus had  just  now  died,  as  Jesus  knew  by  di- 
vine vision.  This  is  certainly  possible,  not- 
withstanding what  has  been  said  under  verse 
6,  and  is,  in  fact,  probable,  if  the  place  of 
Christ's  retirement  was  north  of  the  Sea  of 
Galilee  and  east  of  the  Upper  Jordan,  as  Von 
Raumer  and  Caspari  suppose,  or  onlj'  a  few 


miles  south  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  east  of 
the  Jordan,  as  others  have  recently  conjec- 
tured. For  in  either  case  the  journey  of  Je- 
sus to  Bethany,  on  the  eastern  slope  of  Olivet, 
might  naturally  have  occupied  three  or  four 
days,  and  could  not  have  been  made  in  one. 
Yet  the  expression  is  asleep  (perfect  tense), 
does  not  require  us  to  suppose  that  he  hud  just 
now  fallen  asleep.  The  same  word  might 
have  been  used  with  equal  propriety,  if  Jesus 
thought  of  him  as  now  continuing  in  a  sleep 
into  which  he  had  fallen  two  days  before. 
"In  all  verbs,"  remarks  Dr.  J.  A.  Broadus, 
"the  perfect  denotes  an  action  standing  in  a 
completed  state.  In  many  verbs,  this  will 
suggest  to  the  mind  a  foregoing  process  which 
has  led  to  this  completed  state,  but  not  in  all 
cases,  and  not  at  all  necessarily."  The  words 
our  friend,  show  that  Lazarus  had  mani- 
fested good  will  to  the  disciples,  as  well  as  to 
Jesus,  and  are  in  special  harmony  with  the 
exhortation.  Let  us  go  into  Judea  again. 
(ver.  7.)  The  further  statement,  I  go,  that  I 
may  aAvake  him  out  of  sleep,  was  fitted  to 
make  the  disciples  understand  that  Lazarus 
was  in  no  ordinary  sleep;  for  there  could 
surely  be  no  occasion  for  Jesus  to  make  a  long 
journey  to  rouse  him  from  a  peaceful,  restful, 
recuperative  sleep.  But  a  misunderstanding 
of  his  remark  when  first  informed  of  the  sick- 
ness of  Lazarus  ("••.4),  may  have  prevented 
their  apprehending  all  that  was  implied  in  the 
declaration,  I  go,  that  I  may  awake  him 
out  of  sleep.  The  word  sleep  appears 
to  be  used  by  the  sacred  writers  in  place  of 
"death,"  first,  because  the  physical  phenom- 
ena of  the  two  are  somewhat  similar;  and, 
secondly,  because  death  is  to  be  followed  by 
resurrection.  For  the  same  reasons,  Jesus 
spoke  of  Lazarus  in  this  place,  and  of  the 
daughter  of  Jairus,  in  Matt.  9:  24,  as  being 
asleep. 

12.  Then  (or,  therefore)  said  his  dis- 
ciples, etc.  .  .  he  shall  do  well ;  or,  ^vill  be 
saved — that  is,  from  death,  as  threatened  by 


Ch.  XL] 


JOHN. 


229 


13  Howbeit  Jesus  spake  of  his  death:  but  they  thought 
that  he  had  spoken  of  taking  of  rest  in  sleep. 

14  Then  said  Jesus  unto  theui  plainly,  Lazarus  is 
dead. 

15  Andl  amglad  foryoiirsakesthat  I  wasnotthere,  to 
the  intent  ye  may  believe;  nevertheless  let  us  go  unto 
biui. 

16  Then  said  Thomas,  which  is  called  Didymus,  unto 
his  fellow  disciples,  Let  us  also  go,  that  we  may  die  with 
him. 


13  he  will  1  recover.  Now  Jesus  had  spoken  of  his 
death ;  but  they  thought  that  he  spake  of  taking 

14  rest  in  sleep.    Then  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them 

15  plainly,  Lazarus  is  dead.  And  I  am  glad  for 
your  sakes  that  I  was  not  there,  to  the  intent  ye 
may    believe;    nevertheless  let    us   go    unto    him. 

16  Thomas  therefore,  who  is  called  2  Didymus,  said  un- 
to his  fellow-disciples,  Let  us  also  go,  that  we  may 
die  with  him. 


1  Gr.  be  saved 2  That  is,  Twin. 


the  disease  It  is  sufficiently  accurate  to  render 
the  word  (o-Mflijo-eTo-t)  he  loilL  recover  (Alford, 
Noyes),  or,  he  will  be  restored  (Bible  Union 
Revision).  Sleep  was  considered  a  favorable 
symptom  in  many  diseases.  It  often  marked 
and  followed  the  turn  of  a  fever.  Hence  the 
disciples  seize  upon  this  fact  as  a  reason  why 
Jesus  need  not  repair  to  Bethany.  But  in 
their  eagerness  they  misunderstood  the  Lord, 
as  the  Evangelist  proceeds  to  say. 

13.  Howbeit  Jesus  spake  (better,  but 
Jesus  had  spoken)  of  his  death.  This  verse 
makes  it  certain  that  the  disciples  did  not  sus- 
pect the  real  meaning  of  Christ.  And  in  par- 
tial explanation  of  their  failure  to  divine  his 
meaning,  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  three 
select  disciples,  Peter,  James,  and  John,  who 
were  permitted  to  enter  the  house  of  Jairus 
with  him  and  to  hear  him  speak  of  the  damsel 
who  was  dead  as  being  asleep,  were  now  ab- 
sent. This  is  plausible,  and  might  account  for 
the  prominence  of  Thomas,  instead  of  Peter; 
but  it  is  only  a  conjecture,  and  the  style  of 
John  goes  to  show  that  in  almost  every  in- 
stance he  was  a  personal  witness  of  what  he 
relates. 

14.  Then  (or,  therefore)  said  Jesus  unto 
them  plainly,  Lazarus  is  dead  (or,  died). 
The  death  of  Lazarus  is  here  distinctly  set 
forth  as  a  past  event,  though  without  any  hint 
of  the  precise  time  when  it  took  place.  Yet 
it  does  not  seem  perfectly  natural  for  Jesus  to 
employ  the  aorist  tense  of  the  verb  {Laza7'us 
died),  if  the  death  of  Lazarus  had  just 
occurred. 

15.  And  I  am  glad  for  your  sakes  that 
I  Avas  not  there,  etc.  This  language  im- 
plies, (1)  that  had  Jesus  been  present  in 
Bethany,  he  would  not  have  suffered  Lazarus 
to  die;  his  miraculous  power  would  have 
been  used  in  restoring  the  sick  to  health,  and 
not  in  raising  the  dead  to  life.  The  Saviour 
always  paid  due  regard  to  all  the  circum- 
stances of  life  in  his  conduct.  His  miracles 
were  never  extravagant,  but  always  adapted 


to  person  and  place  with  divine  wisdom.  (2) 
That  Christ  desired  to  increase  the  faith  of  his 
disciples,  and  had  that  end  distinctly  in  view 
when  doing  mighty  works.  Me^'er  beauti- 
fully explains  the  words  to  the  intent  (or, 
that)  ye  may  believe,  by  remarking,  "that 
every  new  flight  of  faith  is  in  its  degree  a 
progress  towards  faith."  (3)  That  all  miracles 
are  not  equally  impressive  and  convincing  as 
revelations  of  divine  power.  Raising  the 
dead  is  a  greater  work  than  healing  the  sick, 
a  more  signal  and  glorious  exhibition  of  the 
might  of  him  who  is  over  all.  ' '  If  we  cannot 
say  with  certainty  that  no  miracle  he  ever 
wrought  occupied  beforehand  so  much  of  our 
Saviour's  thoughts,  we  can  say  that  no  other 
miracle  was  predicted  and  prepared  for  as 
this  one  wdS.'^^Hanna. 

16.  Then  said  Thomas,  which  [who)  is 
called  Didymus,  etc.  The  word  then,  or 
therefore,  represents  the  saying  of  Thomas  as 
occasioned  by  Christ's  renewed  expression  of 
his  purpose  to  visit  Bethany,  and  of  his  desire 
to  be  accompanied  by  his  disciples,  (ver. is.) 
But  so  vivid  was  the  apprehension  which 
Thomas  had  of  the  power  and  enmity  of  the 
Jews,  and  of  the  almost  certain  death  which 
awaited  Jesus  at  their  hands,  that  he  failed  to 
take  in  the  import  of  his  Master's  language. 
(ver.15.)  "I  {am  glad)  rejoice  for  3'our  sakes 
that  I  was  not  there,  to  the  intent  ye  may  be- 
lieve." For  this  language  certainly  fore- 
shadowed a  glorious  display  of  the  Saviour's 
power,  and  forbade  the  thought  of  immediate 
death.  But  though  Thomas  could  think  of 
nothing  but  the  danger  which  threatened  the 
life  of  his  Lord,  his  loyalty  and  love  were 
deep,  and  he  was  ready  to  follow  him  into 
danger  and  death.  Such  at  least  was  his  feel- 
ing at  this  time.  The  name  Thomas  is  de- 
rived from  the  Hebrew,  and  signifies  tivin ; 
Didymus  is  from  the  Greek,  and  means  the 
same.  Only  a  few  notices  of  this  apostle 
occur  in  the  New  Testament.  He  is  coupled 
with  Matthew,  in  Matt.  10:  3;  Mark  3:  18; 


230 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XL 


17  Then  when  Jesus  came,  he  found  that  he  had  lain 
in  the  grave  for  four  days  already. 

IS  Now  Bethany  was  nigh  unto  Jerusalem,  about  fif- 
teen furlongs  off: 

19  And  mciuy  of  the  Jews  came  to  Martha  and  Mary, 
to  comfort  them  concerning  their  brother. 


17  So  when  Jesus  came,  he  found  that  he  had  been 

18  in  the  tomb  four  days  already.    Now  Bethany  was 

19  nigh  unto  Jerusalem,  about  titteen  furlongs  off;  and 
many  of  the  Jews  had  come  to  Martha  and  Mary,  to 


Luke  6:  15;  and  with  Philip,  in  Acts  1 :  13. 
"  All  that  we  know  of  him  is  derived  from  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John ;  and  this  amounts  to  three 
traits,  which,  however,  so  exactly  agree  to- 
gether, that,  slight  as  they  are,  they  place  his 
character  before  us  with  a  precision  which 


verse,  see  comments  on  verses  6  and  11.  As 
it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  bury  their 
dead  on  the  day  of  tlieir  decease,  and  with 
very  little  delay,  it  would  be  unsafe  to  make 
much  allowance  for  the  time  which  may  have 
elapsed  between  the  death  and  the  burial  of 


ul.lUA^\. 


belongs  to  no  other  of  the  twelve  apostles,  ex- 
cept Peter,  John,  and  Judas  Iscariot.  This 
character  is  that  of  a  man  slow  to  believe, 
seeing  all  the  difficulties  of  a  case,  subject  to 
despondency,  viewing  things  on  the  darker 
side,  and  yet  full  of  ardent  love  for  his  Mas- 
ter." (Smith's  "Diet,  of  the  Bible,"  Art. 
Thomas). 

17-44.  Thk  Mir.^cle  Performed. 

17.  Then  Avhen  Jesus  came,  he  found 
that  he  had  lain  (been)  in  the  grave  (tomb) 
four  days  already.  This  statement  is  joined 
to  the  preceding  by  then,  or  therefore,  because 
the  action  which  it  relates  resulted  from  the 
purpose  there  spoken  of.  For  the  different 
inferences  which  have  been  drawn  from  this 


Lazarus.  It  is  proper  to  insist  only  upon  the 
fact  that  he  had  been  dead  four  days.  From 
the  remark,  he  found  that  he  had  been  in 
the  tomb  four  days  already,  it  cannot  be 
inferred,  with  any  certaint\',  that  Jesus  was 
ignorant  of  the  time  of  Lazarus'  death  and 
burial,  until  he  arrived  in  Bethany.  Doubt- 
less, this  fact  was  reported  to  him  by  those 
whom  he  met,  and  was  then  first  known  by 
the  Evangelist.  There  is  reason  to  believe 
that  Jesus  knew  all  this,  while  he  was  still  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Jordan,  and  that  the  tes- 
timony now  given  was  to  him  only  the  veri- 
fication of  his  divine  knowledge. 

18.  Now  Bethany  was  nish  unto  Jeru- 
salem,  about  fifteen   furlongs   off.    The 


Ch.  XL] 


JOHN. 


231 


20  Then  Martha,  as  soon  as  she  heard  that  Jesus  was 
coming,  went  and  luet  hiui :  but  Mary  sat  still  in  the 
house. 

21  Then  said  Martha  unto  Jesus,  Lord,  if  thou  hadst 
been  here,  my  brother  had  not  died. 

22  But  I  kuow,  that  even  now,  "  whatsoever  thou  will 
ask  of  God,  God  will  give  il  thee. 


20  console  them  concerning  their  brother.  Martha 
therefore,  when  she  heard  that  Jesus  was  coming, 
went  and  met  him:  but  Mary  still  sat  in  the  house. 

21  Martha  therefore  said  unto  Jesus,  Lord,  if  thou  hadst 

22  been  here,  my  brother  had  not  died.  And  even  now 
1  know  that,  whatsoever  thou  shall  ask  of  God,  God 


short  distance  of  Bethany  from  Jerusalem — a 
little  less  than  two  English  miles — is  men- 
tioned because  of  the  number  of  Jews  who 
visited  Martha  and  Mary  in  that  village,  to 
comfort  them  for  the  loss  of  their  brother. 

19.  And  many  of  the  Jews  came  (had 
come)  to  Martha  and  Mary,  etc.  The  Jews 
most  probably  refer,  in  this  place,  to  the  lead- 
ing men  of  the  nation  who  resided  in  Jerusa- 
lem. The  family  of  Martha,  Mary,  and  Laz- 
arus was  so  respectable,  that  many  of  the  lead- 
ing Jews  continued  their  intercourse  and 
friendship  with  it,  even  after  its  members 
were  known  to  be  disciples  of  Jesus.  Some 
of  these  Jews  were  not  so  full  of  prejudice 
and  hatred  to  Christ  as  others  (see  ver.  45,  46) ; 
and  none  of  them  wore  ringleaders  in  the  at- 
tempts to  destroy  him.  The  Greek  expression 
translated  to  Martha  and  Mary,  means  prop- 
erly to  Martha  and  Mary,  with  the  women 
about  them.  "According  to  later  Greek  usage, 
it  might  be  indicative  simply  of  the  two  sis- 
ters. But  the  New  Testament,  says  Meyer, 
contains  no  instaiice  of  its  use  in  this  sense, 
and  there  is  here  an  especial  decorum  in  the 
expression,  since  those  who  came  to  them 
were  men.  It  reveals,  moreover,  an  estab- 
lishment of  the  better  class"  (From  Lange.) 
Seven  days  was  the  customary  period  for  such 
manifestations  of  s^nnpathy.  (Comp.  1  Sam. 
31:  13;   1  Chron.  10:  12.  )i 

20.  Then  Martha,  as  soon  as  (lit.,  when) 
she  heard  that  Jesus  was  coming,  went 
to  meet  him,  etc.  The  conduct  of  the  two 
sisters  agrees  perfectly  with  their  characters 
as  revealed  on  another  occasion.  (See  Luke 
10:  38-42.)  The  older  sister  is  prompt,  active, 
practical ;  the  younger  quiet,  spiritual,   con- 

1  It  should,  however,  be  remarked  that  Lach.,  Treg., 
W.  and  H.,  adopt  a  reading,  supported  by  J<  b  c*  l  x. 
33.  Pesch.,  Memp.,  and  other  versions  Ir'rfv  Moip^a  ical 
Mapta/ii),  which  agrees  with  the  English  version,  to 
Martha  and  Mary.  But  though  the  evidence  for 
this  text  is  so  strong,  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the 
change  to  the  common  text  from  this  easier  reading; 
and  therefore,  it  is  safer  to  abide  by  the  text  explained 
above. 


fiding.  Martha  went  to  meet  Jesus,  partly 
because  it  was  her  nature  to  act  and  not  to  wait, 
and  partly,  we  imagine,  because  she  preferred 
to  speak  with  him  first  in  the  presence  of  his 
friends,  rather  than  in  the  presence  of  his  foes. 
"Mary,  whether  she  hears  or  not,  sees  her 
sister  rise  and  go,  yet  stays  still  in  the  house — 
the  two  sisters,  one  in  her  eager  movement, 
the  other  in  her  quiet  rest — here,  as  elsewhere, 
showing  forth  the  difference  of  their  charac- 
ters."— Hnnna.  "Mary  speaks  less,  but  feels 
more." — Schaff.  The  word  still  in  the  Com- 
mon Version  is  not  the  adjective  meaning 
"silent,"  but  the  adverb  after  that,  or  after 
Martha  went  out. 

21.  Then  said  Martha  unto  Jesus,  Lord, 
if  thou  (this  pronoun  is  not  emphatic)  hadst 
been  here,  my  brother  had  not  {would  not 
have)  died.  A  sentiment  in  perfect  accord 
with  the  most  natural  interpretation  of 
Christ's  language  in  ver.  15.  From  the  cir- 
cumstance that  both  sisters  meet  the  Lord 
with  the  same  words,  it  may  be  safely  inferred 
that  they  had  communed  together  on  this 
point,  and  had,  perhaps,  expressed  the  same 
thought  to  each  other  many  times  since  their 
brother's  death.  "Why  they  felt  this  assur- 
ance, we  cannot  tell.  It  may  have  been  the 
fruit  of  love  trusting  in  love.  But  at  all 
events  it  appears  to  havo  been  well-founded, 
though  it  was  no  part  of  the  Saviour's  plan 
or  work  to  heal  all  his  friends  who  were  sick. 
More  remarkable  are  the  next  words  of 
Martha. 

22.  But  (rather,  and)  I  know,  that  even 
now,  whatsover  thou  wilt  ask  of  God, 
God  will  give  it  thee.  There  is  certainly 
to  be  discovered  in  these  words  a  hope  that 
Lazarus  might  be  restored  to  life.  Probably 
two  things  contributed  to  produce  this  hope 
and  to  lead  her  to  express  it,  though  but  indi- 
rectly: (1)  The  declaration  of  Jesus  pre- 
served in  ver.  4:  "This  sickness  is  not  unto 
death,  but  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  Son 
of  God  might  be  glorified"  ;  for  this  declara- 
tion was,  doubtless,  reported  to  the  sisters 
by  their  messenger;  and,  (2)  The  restoration 


232 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XI. 


23  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Thy  brother  shall  rise  again.  I  23  will  give  thee.    Jesus  sailh  unto  her,  Thy  brother 

24  Martha  saith  unto  him,  <•  I  know  that  he  shall  rise    24  shall  rise  again.    Martha  saith  unto  hiiu,  I  know 


again  in  the  i-esurreetiou  at  the  last  day. 

25  Jesus  said  unto  her,  I  am  *  the  resurrection,  and 
the  <^life;  ''he  that  believeth  in  me,  though  he  were 
dead,  yet  shall  he  live : 


that  he  shall  rise  again  in  the  resurrection  at  the 
25  last  day.    Jesus  said  unto  her,  I  am  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  the  lite ;  he  that  believeth  on  me,  though 


a  Luke  U:  li;  cb.  5: 


:  6;  Col.  3:  4;  1  John  I:  1,  2;  5:  11 d  ch.  3  :  36;  1  John  5: 


of  life  to  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain  and 
to  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  of  which  she  must 
surely  have  heard.  But  the  modesty  and  re- 
serve of  Martha  are  also  noticeable.  She 
does  not  expressly  mention  what  seems  to 
have  been  in  her  heart,  but  merely  suggests  it 
by  a  comprehensive  word— whatsoever  thou 
wilt  ask.  It  will  also  be  observed  that  she 
does  not  ascribe  to  Jesus  himself  any  super- 
natural power.  That  power,  according  to  her 
language,  belongs  to  God,  but  will  be  exer- 
cised, as  she  knows^  in  response  to  the  en- 
treaty of  Jesus.  That  this  is  her  view  is 
manifest  from  the  prominence  given  to  God — 
"whatsoever  thou  wilt  ask  of  God,  God  will 
give  it  thee."  Some  have  inferred  the  same 
thing,  and  even  more,  from  the  verb  which 
she  employs  to  express  the  idea  of  asking  or 
entreating  (airtai)— a  verb  which  is  supposed  to 
be  used  only  by  inferiors  to  superiors,  while 
another  (epiordu)  is  used  by  equals  to  equals. 
But  this  distinction  is  not  well-founded.  (See 
an  article  in  the  North  American  by  Dr. 
Ezra  Abbott,  entitled  Trench's  Synonyms)^ 
23.  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Thy  brother 
shall  rise  again.  Her  comprehensive 
whatsover  is  perfectly  understood  by  the 
Lord,  and  his  re.eponse  has  respect  to  its  real 
import.  But  this  response  is  itself  indefinite. 
It  may  refer  to  the  resurrection  of  the  just  at 
some  future  time  called  "the  last  day,"  or  it 
may  refer  to  an  immediate  re-animation  of 
Lazarus.  The  latter  meaning  is  doubted  by 
some  eminent  scholars,  but,  as  it  seems  to  us, 
without  sufficient  reason.  For  in  itself  the 
verb  appears  to  signify  a  rising  again  to 
physical  life  quite  as  naturally  as  it  does  any 
different  rising;  and  there  is  no  conclusive 
evidence  that  it  had  already  become  a  techni- 
cal term,  even  if  it  became  one  at  a  later  day. 
Moreover,  the  whole  previous  narrative  leads 
one  to  expect  at  this  point  some  reference, 
either  plain  or  obscure,  to  the  miracle  in  pros- 


1  Probably  (airea)  is  a  stronger  term  than  («p<oto«o), 
the  former  corresponding  to  the  English  "  beg"  or 
"  entreat,"  and  the  latter  to  the  English  "ask." 


pect.  And  still  further,  Martha,  as  we  learn 
from  her  response,  had  no  doubt  of  a  final 
resurrection  in  the  case  of  her  brother,  and  it 
was,  therefore,  needless  to  assure  her  of  it. 
"We  believe  that  Jesus  wished  to  bind  together 
in  the  mind  of  Martha,  the  final  resurrection 
and  the  re-animation  of  her  brother,  and  on 
this  account  used  a  term  that  was  applicable 
to  both,  and  might  signify  either.  Martha 
perceived  the  indefiniteness  of  liis  declara- 
tion, but  did  not  venture  to  speak  out  clearl3' 
the  desire  of  her  heart.  She  only  hinted  her 
hope  of  something  else,  by  saying  that  she 
was  already  aware  of  the  truth  of  his  decla- 
ration, if  it  had  respect  to  the  final  resurrec- 
tion only. 

24.  I  know  that  he  shall  (or,  will)  rise 
again  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day. 
If  this  was  uttered  with  a  slightly  rising  in- 
flection, indicative  of  a  desire  for  something 
more  definite  in  respect  to  her  brother — as  if 
she  almost  hoped  for  something  in  his  case 
that  would  not  be  true  of  every  one,  the 
thought  has  been  correctly  explained  in  the 
comment  on  ver.  23.  "Her  words  are  ex- 
pressive, not  merely  of  a  sad  resignation,  but 
of  an  indirect  query — she  is  feeling  her  way." 
— Lange,  De  Wette.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
suppose  that  Martha's  knowledge  of  a  future 
resurrection  was  derived  wholly  from  the  Old 
Testament,  or  from  the  scribes  of  her  people. 
She  may  have  been  taught  the  truth  by  Christ 
himself,  who  had  been  often  welcomed  to  her 
house.  Yet  there  is  ample  evidence  that  the 
Pharisees  believed  in  a  future  life,  and  in  a 
resurrection  of  the  just.  (See  Article  Kesur- 
rection,  in  Smith's  "Diet,  of  the  Bible,"  Am. 
ed.) 

25.  I  am  the  resurrection,  and  the  life. 
"I  am  their  source,  their  ground,  their  au- 
thor." " /,  no  other  than  I  .  .  am  the  \>eT- 
?:or\?t\  power  of  both — the  one  who  raises  again, 
and  who  makes  alive." — Meyer.  "Without 
me  they  would  be  unattainable.  Behold  in 
me  the  being  on  whose  will  and  work  the  res- 
urrection of  the  dead  and  the  blessed  life  in 
God  absolutely  depend."     This  is  the  central 


Ch.  XL] 


JOHN. 


233 


26  And  whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  in  me  shall  I  26  he  die,  yet  shall  he  live:  and  whosoever  liveth  and 
never  die.    Belie  vest  thou  this?  1       believeth  on  me  shall  never  die.    Belie  vest  thou 


point  in  the  narrative,  and  the  one  great  truth 
which  it  illustrates.  This  truth  Christ  pro- 
ceeds to  paraphrase  and  explain.  He  that 
believeth  iii  me — that  is,  he  who  is  a  be- 
liever in  me — he  of  whom  trust  in  me  is  a 
characteristic.  Though  he  were  dead.  The 
Rev.  Ver.  gives:  Though  he  die.  It  is,  per- 
haps, doubtful  whether  this  translation  is 
preferable  to  another  of  which  the  Greek  is 
capable,  viz. :  Though  he  have  died.  If  Jesus 
had  Lazarus  in  mind  when  uttering  this 
clause,  the  latter  version  is  to  be  preferred, 
for  Lazarus  vvas  now  dead ;  but  if  not,  the 
Kev.  Version  is  better,  because  it  agrees  with 
the  prevailing  New  Testament  signification  of 
verbs,  in  the  mood  and  tense  here  used.  Per- 
haps there  was  sufficient  reference  to  Lazarus 
to  justify  the  latter  rendering,  which  is  ap- 
proved by  Meyer,  SchafF,  Noyes,  and  Wat- 
kins.  Yet  shall  he  live,  or,  more  briefly, 
shall  live.  That  is,  death  will  not  retain  him 
in  its  power,  but  he  will  be  raised  by  Christ  to 
a  true  and  blessed  life — he  "will  come  forth 
.  .  .  to  the  resurrection  of  life."  (5:29.)  Thus 
Christ  declares  himself  to  be  the  resurrection 
unto  life  to  all  who  believe  in  him.  They 
may  sutler  physical  death,  but  they  will  be 
brought  into  a  perfect  life  of  body  and  spirit. 
26.  And  whosoever — (i.  e.,  every  one  who) 
liveth  and  believeth  in  me  shall  never 
die.  The  believer  who  is  still  in  possession  of 
physical  life  will  never  suffer  true  death — that 
death  which  is  the  antithesis  of  true  life.  In 
ver.  25,  the  death  spoken  of  is  physical,  and 
the  life  spiritual ;  in  this  verse,  the  life  spoken 
of  is  physical,  and  the  death  spiritual.  The 
last  clause  is  sometimes  translated,  will  not 
die  forever — i.  e.,  though  he  may  die  for  a 
time.  Schaff  remarks  that  "the  phrase  is  in 
itself  ambiguous,  and  may  mean  either  not 
forever,  or  never.  The  first  and  literal  ren- 
dering would  give  a  very  plain  sense  :  He  that 
liveth  (physically)  and  believeth  in  me.,  will 
no^rfie  (physically  )/orevc? — i.  e.,  will  be  raised 
again.     But  in  all  other  passages  in  which  the 

same    phrase    occurs     (4:  U;  8:  51,52;  10:28;  13:  8;  l 

Cor.  8:13),  it  is  equivalent  to  never  .  .  .  with  an 
emphasis  on  the  negation.  "We  must,  then, 
suppose  that  Christ,  in  verse  26,  either  spoke  of 
spiritual  death,  or  overlooked  physical  death 
as  a  vanishing  transition  to  real  and  eternal 


life."  Meyer  adopts  the  former  interiireta- 
tion  :  "  will  assuredly  not  die  forever — i.  e.,  he 
will  not  lose  his  life  in  eternity'";  but  it  is 
difficult  to  see  how  this  adds  anj'thing  to  what 
has  been  before  said.  To  assert  that  a  be- 
liever in  Christ,  though  he  die,  or  have  died, 
will  live — i.  e.,  by  virtue  of  the  resurrection, 
is  the  same  as  to  say  that  a  living  believer  will 
not  die  forever,  because  he  will  be  raised  again 
to  life.  But  the  great  objection  to  this  view 
is,  that  the  phrase  has  a  different  meaning  in 
every  other  passage  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  that  meaning  one  perfectly  adapted  to 
this  place.  To  the  woman  of  Samaria,  Jesus 
said  :  "  Whosoever  drinketh  of  this  water  will 
thirst  again;  but  whosoever  drinketh  of  the 
water  that  I  shall  give  him,  will  never  thirst," 
etc.  In  contrast  with  thirsting  again,  is  here 
put  never  thirsting  again — a  natural  and  per- 
fect contrast.  It  was  so  understood  by  the 
woman,  and  so  explained  by  the  added  meta- 
phor of  a  living  and  upspringing  fountain  in 
the  soul.  In  8 :  51  stand  recorded  the  words 
of  Jesus:  "If  a  man  keep  my  saying,  he 
shall  never  see  death,"  and  in  the  next  verse, 
the  interpretation  of  the  Jews  :  "Abraham  is 
dead,  and  the  prophets;  and  thou  sayest.  If  a 
man  keep  my  saying,  he  shall  never  taste 
death."  Here  there  is  no  question  about  the 
resurrection.  As  the  Jews  understood  him  to 
say,  even  so  Christ  really  said,  that  one  who 
should  keep  his  word  would  never  die.  The 
Jews  themselves  did  not  believe  that  Abraham 
and  the  prophets  had  lost  their  lives  in  eter- 
nity. Christ  intended  to  say  that  the  true  life 
possessed  by  one  who  keeps  his  word  will 
never  come  to  an  end,  but  flow  on  forever. 
Again,  the  Lord  says  of  his  true  sheep,  "I 
give  unto  them  eternal  life;  and  they  shall 
never  perish,  neither  shall  any  man  (or,  one) 
pluck  them  out  of  my  hand."  (lo:  28.)  This 
does  not  mean  "They  shall  not  jierish  for- 
ever," though  they  may  perish  for  a  time; 
death  may  pluck  them  out  of  my  hands  for 
ages,  but  I  will  recover  them  at  last,  by  the 
resurrection;  but,  as  the  connection  requires, 
"they  shall  never  perish:  in  my  protection, 
they  are  safe  for  time  and  eternity.  In  John 
13:  8,  Peter  uses  the  same  expression,  "Thou 
shalt  never  wash  my  feet,"  and  of  course  he 
does  not  mean,  "thou  shalt  not  wash  my  feet 


234 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XI. 


27  She  saith  unto  him,  Yea,  Lord:  "I  believe  that 
thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  which  should  come 
into  the  world. 

28  And  when  she  had  so  said,  she  went  her  way,  and 
called  Mary  her  sister  secretly,  saying.  The  Master  is 
come,  and  callefh  tor  thee. 

29  As  soon  as  she  heard  that,  she  arose  quickly,  and 
came  unto  him. 

30  Now  Jesus  was  not  yet  come  into  the  town,  but 
was  in  that  place  where  Martha  met  him. 


27  this?  She  saith  unto  him,  Yea,  Lord:  I  have  be- 
lieved that  thou  art  the  C  hrist,  the  Son  of  God,  even 

28  he  that  cometh  into  the  world.  And  when  she  had 
said  this,  she  went  away,  and  called  Mary  iher  sis- 
ter secretly,  saying,  The  -  Master  is  here,  and  call- 

29  eth  thee.  And  she,  when  she  heard  it,  arose  quickly, 

30  and  went  unto  him.  (Now  Jesus  was  not  yet  conie 
into  the  village,  but  was  still  in  the  place  where 


a  Matt.  16 :  16 ;  ch.  4  :  42  ;  6  :  14,  69. 1  Or,  her  sister,  saying  secretly 2  Or,  Teacher. 


forever.,  or  in  eternity.^'  The  meaning  of  the 
phrase  is  unambiguous.  Paul  avails  himself 
of  the  same  expression  (icor. 8:i3):  "If  meat 
make  my  brother  to  offend,  I  will  eat  no  flesh 
while  the  world  stands,  or,  never  eat  flesh," 
not,  "I  will  not  eat  flesh  forever,  or  in  eter- 
nity." (See,  also,  Matt.  21 :  19;  Mark  11 :  14; 
3:  -29;  Luke  1 :  54,  55;  John  6:  51,  58;  8:  35; 
12  :  34,  for  a  similar  phraseology.)  Believest 
thou  this?  "A  personal  appeal,  or  appli- 
cation, very  pungent  by  its  suddenness." — 
Bengel. 

27.  Yea,  Lord:  I  believe  (lit.,  have  be- 
lieved) that  thou  art  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  etc.  It  is  best  to  understand 
Martha's  Yea,  Lord,  as  her  full  and  aflirma- 
tive  answer  to  the  Saviour's  question,  Be- 
lievest thou  this  ?  and  the  rest  of  her  words 
as  giving  her  reason  for  this  answer.  "Yea, 
Lord;  for  I  have  myself  believed  and  do  be- 
lieve that  thou  art  the  Christ,"  etc.  This 
interpretation  agrees  with  that  of  Meyer, 
Godot,  Watkins,  and  others.  How  fully  she 
apprehended  the  designation — the  Son  of 
God — can  only  be  conjectured;  but  she  mu.st 
have  seen  in  him  One  who  could  raise  the 
dead  and  impart  true  life,  because  he  was  in  a 
wholly  peculiar  sense  from  with  God.  The 
present  tense  of  which  should  come,  (or. 
Cometh  (6.  .  .  .  epxaixevo^),  \s  a  kind  of  ideal 
present,  meaning  one  who  is  known  in  the 
promises  of  God  as  "the  Coming  One." 

28.  And  Avhen  she  had  so  said,  she 
went  her  Avay  (better,  away),  and  called 
Mary  her  sister  secretly,  saying.  The 
Master  is  come,  and  calleth  for  thee. 
Martha's  second  statement,  and  calleth  for 
thee,  is  to  be  received  with  the  same  confi- 
dence as  her  first  statement,  the  Master 
(Teacher)  is  come.  For  it  is  quite  in  accord 
with  the  Evangelical  narratives  to  omit  cer- 
tain facts  that  are  presupposed  by  what  is 
written.  Every  powerful  writing  does  the 
same.     A  full  record  of  what  Jesus  said  and 


did  in  one  busy  day  of  his  mini.«try  would, 
with  all  the  related  circumstances,  make  a 
large  volume.  Martha  spoke  to  her  sister 
secretly — i.  c,  in  a  whisper,  in  order  that  the 
Jews  about  them  might  not  hear  what  was 
said;  for  it  was  thought  by  Martha,  if  not  by 
Jesus  also,  that  Mary  would  prefer  to  meet 
the  Master,  or,  Teacher,  without  the  pres- 
ence of  unbelieving  friends.  Indeed,  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  Christ's  reason  for 
calling  Mary  to  himself,  instead  of  going  to 
the  house  where  she  was,  was  his  desire  that 
their  meeting  might  be  as  quiet  and  informal 
as  possible.  It  may  be  inferred  from  Martha's 
language  that  the  sisters  were  accustomed  to 
speak  of  Jesus  as  The  Teacher.  No  other 
teacher  was,  in  their  minds,  comparable  to- 
him.i 

29.  As  soon  as  she  heard  that,  etc. 
Better,  And  she,  when  she  heard  it.  An  in- 
stant response  to  the  call  of  her  Lord ! 
There  is  nearly  equal  authority  for  the  more 
vivacious  and  descriptive  reading:  She  riseth 
and  goeth  unto  him.  Godet  remarks,  with 
too  much  confidence,  that  this  "certain!}- is 
the  true  reading." 

30.  Now  Jesus  Avas  not  yet  come  into 
the  town  (village^,  but  was  (or,  was  still) 
in  that  place  where  Martha  met  him. 
He  appears  to  have  remained  for  a  while  out- 
side the  village— ^/irsf,  bectiuse  he  was  met 
there  by  Martha,  and  was  led  to  pause  in 
his  journej'  during  the  conversation  which 
had  been  related  (21:27);  and,  secondly,  he- 
cause,  having  learned  that  there  were  many 
Jewish  friends  at  the  time  in  the  house  of 
Martha  and  Mary,  he  preferred  to  meet  Marj' 
also  before  entering  Bethanj',  and  to  say  to 
her  what  he  wished  to  say  in  the  simplest  and 
quietest  manner  possible.     It  is  also  probable 


1  The  doubtful  readings  of  this  verse  (toOto  or  ravra 

MapioM  or  Mapiav,   €'iTrov(Ta  or  flnaa-a)  do  not  atfect  the 
meaning  in  any  important  respect. 


Ch.  XL] 


JOHN. 


235 


31  »  The  Jews  then  which  were  with  her  iu  the  house, 
and  coiuforted  her,  when  they  saw  Mary,  that  she  rose 
up  hastily  and  went  out,  followed  her,  saying.  She  goeth 
unto  the  grave  to  weep  there. 

32  Theu  when  Mary  was  come  where  Jesus  was,  and 
saw  him,  she  fell  down  at  his  feet,  saying  unto  him, 
i  Lord,  if  thou  hadst  been  here,  my  brother  had  not 
died. 

33  When  Jesus  therefore  saw  her  weeping,  and  the 
Jews  also  weeping  which  came  with  her,  he  groaned  in 
the  spirit,  and  was  troubled, 

34  And  said.  Where  have  ye  laid  him  ?  They  say  unto 
him.  Lord,  come  and  see. 


31  Martha  met  him.)  The  Jews  then  who  were  with 
her  in  the  house,  and  were  comforting  her,  when  they 
saw  Mary,  that  she  rose  upquicklyaiid  went  out,  fol- 
lowed her,  sui)posiug  that  she  was  going  unto  the 

32  tomb  to  1  weep  there.  Mary  therefore,  when  she  came 
where  Jesus  was,  and  saw  him,  fell  down  at  his  feet, 
saying  unto  him.  Lord,  if  thou  hadst  been  here,  my 

33  brother  had  not  died.  When  Jesus  therefore  saw 
her  -  weeping,  and  the  Jews  also  ^  weeping  who  came 
with  her.  he  ^groaned  in  the  si)irit,  and  -i  was  trou- 

34  bled,  and  said,  Where  have  ye  laid  him?    They  say 


I  vcr.  19 b  ver.  21. 1  Gr.  wait 2  Gr.  wailing 3  Or,  was  moved  with  indignation  in  the  spirit 4  Gr.  troubled  himself. 


that  the  buriul  place  of  Bethany  was  outside 
the  viUage,  not  far  from  the  phioe  where 
Jesus  rested.  To  this,  Meyer's  objection  that 
he  did  not  even  know  where  Lazarus  was 
laid  (ver. 34)  is  without  force;  for  in  a  burial 
place  there  are  usually  many  graves.  It  also 
appears  that  Mary  took  such  a  direction  in 
going  to  meet  Jesus  as  led  the  Jews  to  suppose 
that  she  might  be  going  to  the  grave  of  her 
brother. 

31.  The  Jews  then  which  (who)  were 
with  her  in  the  house,  etc.  Trustworthy 
observers  testify  that  it  is  still  the  custom  of 
Oriental  women  to  visit  often  the  tombs  of 
their  deceased  kindred  and  weep  there;  and 
not  alone,  but  with  many  who  join  them. 
These  friendly  Jews  were,  no  doubt,  anxious 
to  do  all  in  their  power  to  express  their  sym- 
pathy with  the  afflicted  sisters,  and  especially 
with  Mary,  whose  sorrow  was  overwhelming. 
Whether  the  original  text  had  a  word  that 
means  saying  (Ae'vofTcs),  or  a  word  that  means 
thinking  (SoiavTe^),  is  uncertain  and  unim- 
portant. There  is,  perhaps,  a  slight  prepon- 
derance of  testimony  in  favor  of  the  latter, 
which  is,  therefore,  adopted  by  the  Eevised 
Version  (supposijig). 

32.  Then  when  Mary  was  come,  (or, 
Mary  therefore,  when  she  come,)  etc.  In 
two  respects  the  conduct  of  Mar^'  differs  from 
that  of  Martha — she  falls  at  the  feet  of  Jesus, 
evidently  with  a  deeper  feeling  of  grief  than 
was  experienced  by  her  elder  sister,  when  she 
met  the  Lord ;  and  she  utters  only  one  sen- 
tence, relating  wholly  to  the  past,  while  her 
sister  glanced  with  at  least  a  ray  of  hope  into 
the  future.  This  sentence  (compare  ver.  21) 
"had  unquestionably  been  the  oft-repeated  re- 
frain of  their  mutual  communications  on  the 
subject  of  their  sorrow." — Meyer.  That  Mary 
had  less  confidence  than  Martha  in  Jesus,  as 
one  through  whom  her  brother's  life  might 


even  now  be  restored,  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose;  but  grief  choked  her  utterance. 
There  is  also  a  slight  difference  in  the  order 
which  she  gave  to  the  words  of  the  sentence 
uttered  by  her  sister  and  herself,  by  which 
the  pronoun  my  has  been  supposed  to  gain  a 
slight  emphasis,  as  if  she  had  said  in  English  : 
"My  own  brother  would  not  have  died." 

33.  When  Jesus  therefore  saw  her 
weeping,  (or,  weep,)  etc.  In  explaining  this 
very  difficult  verse,  it  must  be  remarked  that 
there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  the  Common 
Version,  he  groaned  in  spirit.  For  the  pri- 
mary and  physical  sense  of  the  verb  here  used, 
is  to  snort,  and  its  derived  sense,  to  be  angry, 
or,  indignant.  The  second  meaning  is  not  in- 
appropriate here.  For  anger  and  grief  are 
compatible  feelings;  certainly  they  may  suc- 
ceed each  other  in  an  instant.  And  on  this 
occasion  there  was  a  reason  for  the  one  as  well 
as  for  the  other.  Jesus  saw  before  him  not 
only  Mary,  whom  he  loved  with  a  holy  ten- 
derness and  compassion,  but  some  of  his  im- 
placable foes,  who  would  on'y  be  hardened 
and  infuriated  by  the  miracle  he  was  about  to 
perform.  And  these  self-righteous  men  were 
now  weeping  and  groaning  in  professional 
sorrow  with  Mary  !  Men  who  would  soon  be 
plotting  to  kill,  not  only  Jesus,  but  the  re- 
stored Lazarus  (12:  10),  were  there  in  his  pres- 
ence, professing  their  sj'mpathy  and  friend- 
ship for  the  sisters.  No  wonder  the  spirit  of 
the  Holy  One  was  hot  within  him.  The  next 
verb  is  yet  more  difficult  to  translate.  It 
probably  means,  he  shook  himself,  or  shud- 
dered a  kind  of  voluntary  shudder,  express- 
ing his  indignation  by  an  almost  convulsive 
movement  of  his  whole  frame.  The  former 
verb  describes  the  inward  feeling,  and  the  lat- 
ter its  visible  expression.  But  this  indignation 
was  only  for  a  moment. 

34.  Where   have   ye   laid  him?     They 


236 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XI. 


35  "Jesus  wept. 

36  Thea  said  the  Jews,  Behold  how  he  loved  him  ! 

37  And  some  of  them  said.  Could  not  this  man,  *  which 
opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  have  caused  that  even  this 
man  should  not  have  died? 

38  Jesus  therefore  again  groaning  in  liimself  cometh 
to  the  grave.    It  was  a  cave,  and  a  stone  lay  upon  it. 


35  unto  him.  Lord,  come  and  see.    Jesus  wept.    The 

36  Jews  therefore  said,  Behold  how  he  loved  him  !    But 

37  some  of  them  said.  Could  not  this  man,  who  opened 
the  eyes    of  him  that  was  blind,  have  caused  that 

38  this   man   also   should    not    die?     Jesus    therefore 
again  i  groauing  in  himself  cometh  to  the  tomb. 


a  Luke  19 ;  41. . .  .6  ch.  9  :  6. 1  Or,  being  moved  with  indignation  in  himself. 


say  unto  him.  Lord,  come  and  see.    It  is 

a  moment  of  unspeakable  emotion,  and  tlie 
fewest  words  possible  are  uttered.  Jesus  speaks 
to  the  sisters,  and  is  answered  by  them. 

35.  Jesus  wept.  Not  aloud,  as  some  of  the 
Jews  were  doubtless  weeping  or  wailing,  but 
tears  fell  from  his  eyes.  His  grief  was  silent, 
but  deep  and  tearful.  This  brief  sentence 
teaches  the  perfect  human  sympathy  of  Christ. 
He  was  man,  as  well  as  God;  perfectly  hu- 
man, as  well  as  perfectly  divine.  This  is  the 
mystery  of  mysteries,  and  this  is  the  pervad- 
ing thought  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  "The 
"Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us," 
and  the  genuineness  of  his  human  nature  is 
beautifully  revealed  in  the  event  commem- 
orated by  this  verse.  The  divine-human  Re- 
deemer can  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our 
infirmities      (Heb. 2:  i7;  4: 15.) 

36.  Then  said  the  Jews  (or,  the  Jews 
therefore  were  saying).^  Behold  how  he 
loved  him  !  Some  of  the  Jews,  in  view  of 
the  sorrow  of  Jesus,  that  was  manifesting  it- 
self in  tears,  as  he  passed  along  towards  the 
sepulchre,  remarked  more  than  once:  "See 
how  deep  an  affection  he  must  have  had  for 
Lazarus!"  There  was  something  so  natural, 
so  human,  so  profound,  in  the  grief  of  Jesus, 
that  the  less  prejudiced  Jews  saw  in  it  an  evi- 
dence of  extraordinary  love.  But  not  all  "the 
Jews" — and  what  a  part  they  play  in  this  pa- 
thetic scene! — were  open  to  the  sacred  influ- 
ence of  sorrow.  The  thoughts  of  a  part  of 
them  were  taking  a  sinister  direction  ;  for  the 
Evangelist  adds: 

37.  And  s<ime  of  them  said.  Could  not 
this  man,  which  (who)  opened  the  eyes 
of  the  blind  (or,  of  him  that  was  blind), 
have  caused  that  even  this  man  (also) 
should  not  have  died?  That  this  was  asked 
in  a  tone  of  ironj^  malice,  and  unbelief  in 
Jesus,  which  assumed  a  negative  answer,  may 
be  inferred  (1)  from  the  obvious  contrast  be- 
tween the  Jews,  and  some  of  them,  ex- 
pressed by  the  conjunction  but  (Sk)  (compare 
the  same  word  and  expression  in  verse  46) ; 


and  (2)  from  the  feeling  of  indignation  which 
at  once  arises  in  the  soul  of  Jesus,  (ver.  ss.) 
This  feeling  is  naturally  occasioned  by  such 
an  expression,  at  such  a  moment.  Our  inter- 
pretation is  essentially  the  same  as  that  of 
Meyer,  Godet,  Alford,  SchaflT,  Lange,  Wat- 
kins.  And  if  the  spirit  and  aim  of  their 
question  were  thus  malicious,  it  is  probable 
that  they  intended  to  insinuate  doubt  as  to  the 
truth  of  the  report  that  he  had  opened  the 
eyes  of  the  blind  man.  "  If  he  opened  the  eyes 
of  the  blind  man,  as  some  of  you  profess  to 
believe,  could  he  not  have  prevented  tiie  death 
of  this  friend,  for  whom  he  is  now  weeping? 
But  this  he  could  not  do;  what,  then,  must 
we  think  of  his  doing  that?"  Ah,  these  were 
men  who  would  not  be  persuaded,  though  one 
should  rise  from  the  dead.  They  were  men 
who  coidd  not  be  convinced,  because  they 
would  not  believe. 

38.  Jesus  therefore  again  groaning  (or, 
being  again  indignant),  cometh  to  the  grave 
(or,  tomb).  His  indignation  was  renewed  by 
the  sneering  question  of  the  Jews  just  re- 
corded. But  as  this  feeling  of  holy,  though 
unexpressed,  wrath  was  kindled  afresh  in  his 
soul,  the  sepulchre  was  reached.  It  was  a 
cave,  and  a  stone  lay  upon  it.  That  is, 
upon,  or  against,  the  entrance  into  it.  "The 
sepulchres  of  the  Hebrews,"  says  Dr.  Hackett, 
"were  generally  cut  out  of  the  solid  rock; 
sometimes  below  the  level  of  the  ground,  but 
oftener  above  the  ground,  and  on  the  sides  of 
mountains.  The  natural  caves  with  which 
the  country  abounds  were  also  used  for  this 
purpose."  "At  the  bottom  of  a  ledge,  in  the 
rear  of  the  Maronite  Church  at  Nazareth,  I 
noticed  a  sepulchre  cut  in  the  rock,  which 
excited  my  interest  the  more,  because  it  had  a 
large  stone  rolled  against  the  mouth  of  it." 
"The  grave  of  Lazarus  was  closed  with  a 
stone."  "On  the  contrary,  most  of  the  tombs 
which  I  examined  near  Jerusalem  must  have 
had  doors.  The  grooves  and  perforations  for 
the  hinges  that  still  remain,  show  that  they 
werefurnished  with  that  convenience." — ("II- 


Ch.  XL] 


JOHN. 


237 


39  Jesus  said,  Take  ye  away  the  stone.  Martha,  the  39  Now  it  was  a  cave,  and  a  stone  lay  i  against  It.  Je- 
sister  of  him  that  was  dead,  saith  unto  him.  Lord,  by  sus  saith,  Take  ye  away  the  stone.  Martha,  the 
this  time  he  stiuketh:  lor  he  hath  been  deud  lour  days.         sister  of  liim  that  was  dead,  saith  unto  him,  Lord, 

40  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Said  I  not  unto  thee,  that,  if  by  this  time  he  stiuketh:  for  he  hath  been  dead 
thou  wouldest  believe,  thou  shouldest  «  see  the  glory  of  40  four  days.  Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Said  I  not  unto 
(i(^>  I       thee,  that,  if  thou    believedst,  thou  shouldest  see 


a  ver.  4,  23. 1  Or,  upon. 


lustrations  of  Scripture,"  pp.  97,  100.)  "A 
doorway  in  the  perpendicular  face  of  the 
rock,  usually  small,  and  without  ornament, 
leads  to  one  or  more  small  chambers  excavated 
from  the  rock,  and  commonly  upon  the  same 
level  with  the  door.  Very  rarely  are  the 
chambers  lower  than  the  doors.  The  walls  in 
general  are  plainly  hewn;  and  there  are,  oc- 
casionally, though  not  always,  niches,  or  rest- 
ing-places, forthe  dead  bodies."— (Robinson's 
"Researches,"  vol.  I.,  p.  352.)  In  describing 
a  visit  to  Bethany,  he  says  :  "The  monks,  as 
a  matter  of  course,  show  the  house  of  Mary 
and  Martha,  that  of  Simon  the  leper,  and  the 
sepulchre  of  Lazarus.  The  latter  is  a  deep 
vault,  excavated  in  the  limestone  rock,  in  the 
middle  of  the  village;  to  which  there  is  a 
descent  by  twenty-six  steps.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  remark  that  there  is  not  the 
slightest  probability  of  its  ever  having  been 
the  tomb  of  Lazarus.  The  form  is  not  that  of 
the  ancient  sepulchres;  nor  does  its  position 
accord  with  the  narrative  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  implies  that  the  tomb  was  not  in 
the  town." — ("111.,"  p.  432.)  In  confirmation 
of  this  inference  from  the  narrative,  it  may  be 
added  that  Jewish  sepulchres  were  regularlj' 
located  out  of  town.  The  place  where  Laza- 
rus was  entombed  is  therefore  undiscovered, 
and  there  is  no  reason  to  expect  that  it  will 
ever  be  identified.  But  the  fact  that  he  ap- 
pears to  have  been  placed  in  a  tomb  is  gener- 
ally supposed  to  indicate  the  easy  circum- 
stances of  the  family. 

39.  Jesus  said  (saith),  Take  ye  away 
the  stone.  This  command  was  probably  ad- 
dressed to  his  disciples,  though  it  might  have 
been  addressed  to  any  of  the  Jews  present.  It 
has  been  often  used  to  illustrate  the  truth  that 
God  does  not  do,  by  miracle  or  otherwise,  the 
work  which  properly  belongs  to  men,  and  can 
be  performed  by  them.  The  verb  used  seems 
to  imply  that  the  stone  would  be  lifted  up  in 
removing  it  (ipare) ;  and,  if  so,  it  favors  the 
view  that  the  entrance  to  the  sepulchre  was  by 
a  descent,  so  that  the  floor  of  the  sepulchre  was 
lower  than  the  surface  of  the  ground.     This, 


however,  is  by  no  means  certain.  Martha, 
the  sister  of  him  that  was  dead,  etc. 
Whether  Martha  knew,  by  her  frequent  visits 
to  the  sepulchre,  that  the  smell  of  putrefaction 
was  already  in  the  place,  or  whether  she 
merely  inferred  that  it  must  be  so,  from  the  cir- 
cumstance that  this  was  the  fourth  day  since 
he  was  placed  in  the  tomb,  is  uncertain ;  yet 
the  latter  view  is  more  obviously  suggested  by 
her  language  than  the  former.  For,  in  the  one- 
case,  she  says:  "Decomposition  has  already 
begun,  as  I  am  certain,  for  this  is  his  fourth 
day  in  the  tomb"  ;  and,  in  the  other:  "De- 
composition has  already  begun,  as  I  know, 
and  as  was  to  be  expected,  for  this  is  his  fourth 
day  in  the  tomb."  But  whether  she  declared 
what  she  knew  to  be  the  case,  or  what  she  was 
satisfied  must  be  the  case,  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  the  correctness  of  her  statement.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  even  the  wealthy  Jews 
were  accustomed  to  embalm  their  dead  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  preserve  them  from  corrup- 
tion. "  It  is  a  proverb  in  the  Talmud  and  the 
Targum,  that  corruption  sets  in  on  the  third 
day." — Tholvck.  Martha  is  here  described  as 
the  sister  of  him  that  was  dead,  not  to 
account  for  her  boldness  in  thus  speaking,  but 
rather  to  account  for  her  peculiar  shrinking 
at  what  was  proposed.  She  shudders  at  the 
thought  of  having  the  putrefying  form  of  her 
brother  exposed.  Hence,  she  did  not  say  this 
for  the  purpose  of  intimating  to  Jesus  the 
greatness  of  the  work  which  he  seemed  about 
to  attempt,  or  her  doubt  of  his  power  to  per- 
form it. 

40.  Said  I  not  unto  thee,  that,  if  thou 
wouldest  believe  (or,  believedst),  thoa 
shouldest  see  the  glory  of  God?  This 
question  is,  on  the  one  hand,  a  gentle  rebuke 
of  her  weakness  of  faith  ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  taken  with  what  follows,  an  evidence 
of  the  sufficiency  of  her  faith.  There  is  no 
previous  record  of  the  utterance  of  just  these 
words  by  the  Saviour  to  Martha,  but  the  sub- 
stance of  what  they  express  had  been  said  to 
her,  both  indirectly  and  directly.  '(See  verses 
4,  23,  sq., 


238 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XI. 


41  Then  they  took  away  the  stone  from  the  place 
where  the  dead  was  laid.  And  Jesus  lifted  up  his  eyes, 
and  said,  Father,  1  thauli  thee  that  thou  hast  heard 
me. 

42  And  I  knew  that  thou  he.arest  me  always:  but 
"  because  of  the  people  which  stand  by  I  said  it,  that 
they  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me. 


41  the  glory  of  God?  So  they  took  away  the  stone. 
And  Jesus  lifted  up  his  eyes,  and  said,   Father,  I 

42  thank  thee  that  thou  heardest  me.  And  I  knew 
that  thou  hearest  me  always:  but  because  of  the 
multitude  which  standeth  around  I  said  it,  that  they 


41.  Then  (or,  so)  they  took  away  the 
stone.  In  consequence  of  this  answer  to 
Martha,  which  removed  her  objection,  and  in 
obedience  to  his  previous  command,  some  of 
those  present,  perhaps  the  disciples  of  Jesus, 
removed  the  stone  which  closed  the  opening 
into  the  sepulchre.  The  words,  from  the 
place  where  the  dead  was  laid,  are  omit- 
ted by  the  best  editors  as  an  interpolation ; 
and  it  is  clear  that  they  are  not  necessary  to 
a  proper  understanding  of  the  act;  for  the 
stone  would,  of  course,  be  removed  from  the 
opening  of  the  cave  in  which  the  dead  was 
laid.  And  Jesus  lifted  up  his  eyes  and 
said.  The  mention  of  the  uplifting  of  his 
eyes  indicates  the  pen  of  an  eye-witness.  The 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  was,  no  doubt, 
one  of  those  who  accompanied  him  to  Beth- 
any, and  followed  him  to  the  sepulchre. 
Father,  I  thank  thee  that  thou  hast  heard 
(or,  didst  hear)  me.  The  hearing  referred  to 
was  evidently  at  some  definite  time  in  the  past 
(aorist),  as  early,  at  least,  as  the  moment  when 
the  message  from  the  sisters  reached  him  in 
Perea;  for  he  then  said  (ver. <):  "This  sick- 
ness is  not  unto  death,  but  for  the  glory  of 
God,  that  the  Son  of  God  might  be  glorified." 
And,  when  these  words  were  uttered,  he  must 
have  known  that,  according  to  his  Father's 
will,  Lazarus  would  die,  and  be  restored  to 
life;  or,  was  dead,  and  would  be  restored  to 
life.  For  all  his  miracles  were  wrought  in 
absolute  concurrence  with  the  Father.  (5;  i9,  sq.) 
In  them  the  Son  glorified  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  glorified  the  Son.  Never  did  the  Sav- 
iour perform  them  in  pursuance  of  an  im- 
pulse originating  in  himself,  without  com- 
munion with  the  Father.  As  the  divine- 
human  Mediator,  every  desire  of  his  heart 
was  laid  before  his  Father  for  his  approval, 
before  it  was  carried  into  effect. 

42.  And  I  knew  that  thou  hearest  me 
always.  The  pronoun  I  is  emphatic  in  the 
Greek — "I,  for  inj'  part,  knew" — though  this 
might  not  be  true  of  others.  Thus,  Jesus, 
while  recognizing  a  certain  subordination  to 


the  Father  in  the  work  which  he  is  accomplish- 
ing, claims  to  have  no  desire  which  the  Father 
does  not  approve;  no  purpose  which  the  Fa- 
ther does  not  endorse  and  sustain.  Their  one- 
ness of  aim  and  action  is  perfect.  But  be- 
cause of  the  people  (multitude)  which 
stand  by  (or,  standeth  around)  I  said  it,  that 
they  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  (didst 
send)  me.  These  words,  then,  addressed  to 
God,  were  spoken  aloud,  that  the  people  might 
hear  them.  Jesus  was  in  perpetual  inward 
communion  with  the  Father;  but  he  saw  fit, 
on  this  occasion,  to  utter  words  to  his  Father 
aloud,  that  the  people  might  perceive  the  holy 
familiarity  of  his  intercouse  with  God.  With 
a  love  and  confidence,  and  divine  simplicity, 
which  could  not  innocently  be  misunderstood, 
he  talked  for  a  moment  with  the  Father  in 
the  hearing  of  men.  "  Bauer  calls  the  prayer 
a  scheingebet;  Weisse,  a  schaugebet;  conceived 
by  the  Evangelist  in  the  apologetic  interest 
for  the  divinity  of  Ciirist.  Such  impious  non- 
sense arises  from  utter  ignorance  of  the  singu- 
lar intimacy  between  Christ  and  the  Father, 
which  is  so  often  asserted  in  this  Gospel,  and 
illustrated  on  this  occasion.  By  virtue  of  this 
intimacy,  he,  the  Only  Begotten,  never  ad- 
dressed God  as  our  Father;  but,  as  My  Fa- 
ther; or.  Father,  simply;  and  stood  in  con- 
stant  communication  with  him,  so  that  his 
prayers  assumed,  as  it  were,  the  character  of 
reflection  and  mutual  consultation,  and  were 
always  answered." — Schaff.  From  the  cir- 
cumstance that  this  praj'er  was  made  audible, 
for  the  purpose  of  producing  faith  in  the 
minds  of  the  people,  it  has  been  inferred  that 
public  praj'er,  though  offered  directly  to  God, 
may  properly  be  put  in  words  intended  to 
persuade  men  to  repent  and  believe.  But 
there  is  certainly  some  danger  that  this  sec- 
ondary reference  will  diminish  the  earnest- 
ness and  simplicity  of  the  primary  reference. 
Besides,  Christ  does  not  seem  to  have  aimed 
to  produce  faith  by  his  prayer,  in  and  by  it- 
self; but  to  establish  a  ground  for  faith  in 
view  of  the  miracle  to  be  wrought. 


Ch.  XL] 


JOHN. 


239 


43  And  when  he  thus  had  spoken,  he  cried  with  a  43  may  believe  that  thou  didst  send  me.  And  when  he 
loud  voice,  Lazarus,  come  I'ortli.  j       had  thus  spoken,  he  crii-d  witli  a  loud  voice,  Laza- 

44  And  he  that  was  dead  caiue  forth,  bound  hand  I  44  riis,  come  lortli.  He  tiiat  was  dead  came  forth, 
and  foot  with  graveclothes;  and  "his  face  was  bound  j  bound  hand  and  foot  with  '  grave-clothes ;  and  hia 
about  with  a  napkin.  Jesus  saith  unto  them.  Loose  lace  was  liound  about  with  a  napkin.  Jesus  saith 
him,  and  let  him  go.  |       unto  them,  Loose  him,  and  let  him  g(j. 

a  ch.  20  :  7. 1  Or,  grave-bands. 


43.  He  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  Laza- 
rus, come  forth!  More  literally,  Hither! 
forth!  A  great  voice,  corresponds  with  the 
idea  of  death  a?  a  profound  sleep,  from  which 
one  can  only  be  aroused  by  an  extraordinary 
call,  and  at  the  same  time  with  the  exercise 
of  an  authority  and  power  which  belong  only 
to  God.  In  brevity  and  sublimity  this  cry 
has  been  likened  to  the  creative  fiat:  "Let 
there  be  light!"  Cyril  calls  it  "a  divine 
and  roj'al  command."  The  power  of  God 
accompanied  this  summons;  for  the  dead 
body  was  instantly  filled  with  life.  The  re- 
animation  did  not  precede  the  call,  as  some 
interpreters  have  supposed,  but  followed  it  in 
an  instant,  as  if  the  great  voice  had  carried  in 
itself  the  awakening  energy  to  the  dead. 
(Comp.  5:  28,  29;  1  Thess.  4:  16;  1  Cor.  15: 
52).  Moreover  the  words  used  by  Jesus  were 
in  agreement  with  the  circumstances.  "He 
did  not  here  call  out,  Arise!  (as  in  the  case  of 
the  daughter  of  Jairus,  and  of  the  son  of  the 
widow  of  Nain,  Luke  8:  54;  7:  14),  because 
the  words  "Hither,  out!"  seemed  the  most 
natural  to  employ  in  the  case  of  a  dead  man 
already  lying  in  the  tomb." — Meyer. 

44.  And  he  that  was  dead  came  forth, 
bound,  etc.  Whether  the  limbs  of  Lazarus 
had  been  bound  separately,  as  was  the  Egyp- 
tian custom,  or  the  grave-clothes  had  been 
wrapped  about  him  somewhat  loosely,  cannot 
be  determined;  though  the  latter  hypothesis 
is  more  probable  than  the  former;  but  there 
is  no  necessity  for  supposing  that  his  walking 
was  in  itself  miraculous.  With  the  new  life 
pulsating  through  his  body,  he  was  able,  in 
obedience  to  the  word  of  Jesus,  to  come  forth 
slowly  from  the  sepulchre,  and  to  stand  there 
in  the  vigor  of  health,  though  in  the  garments 
of  death,  before  the  wonder-stricken  com- 
pan\'.  The  napkin,  or  handkerchief,  did 
not  probably  cover  the  whole  face,  but  was  so 
bound  about  the  head  as  to  support  the  chin 
and  cover  the  face  in  part.  Loose  him,  and 
let  him  go.  The  "loosing"  consisted,  of 
course,  in  so  arranging  or  removing  his  grave- 
clothes,  that    he  could  walk    freely.      Thus 


simply  does  the  narrative  of  this  astonishing 
miracle  close,  and  the  Evangelist  pass  on  to 
describe  the  eflfect  which  it  had  upon  the  Jews, 
and,  through  them,  upon  the  tragic,  though 
glorious,  end  of  our  Lord's  ministry. 

But  the  truth  of  this  narrative  has  been 
often  assailed  by  unbelieving  critics.  (1)  On 
the  ground  that  a  person  actually  dead,  can- 
not be  brought  to  life  again.  This  ground 
however,  is  solid  for  none  but  atheists  or  pan- 
theists; for  all  others  it  is  merely  "sinking 
sand."  (2)  On  the  ground  that  Jesus  could 
not  have  suffered  Lazarus  to  die,  if  his  life 
was  to  be  prolonged.  As  he  knew  of  his 
friend's  sickness,  he  must  have  chosen  to  heal 
him,  rather  than  to  let  him  die,  and  then  to 
revivify  him.  How  much  of  suff'ering  and 
of  sorrow  would  thus  have  been  spared  to  the 
family  in  Bethany  1  And  surely,  if  he  could 
have  healed  him  at  all,  he  could  have  healed 
him  from  a  distance,  sparing  himself  the  toil 
and  peril  of  the  journey.  But  this  criticism 
is  worthless,  because  it  assumes  that  the  plan 
and  object  of  the  Saviour's  life  are  certainly 
understood  by  the  critic,  and  that  the  resur- 
rection of  Lazarus  at  this  juncture  was  no 
more  subservient  to  the  mission  of  Christ  than 
would  have  been  the  healing  of  Lazarus  from 
a  distance.  The  whole  tenor  of  the  Gospels 
refutes  the  former  assumption,  and  the  pres- 
ent narrative,  with  the  history  that  follows, 
refutes  the  latter.  (8)  On  the  ground  that 
the  other  Evangelists  knew  nothing  of  this 
stupendous  miracle;  for  if  the}'  had  known 
of  it,  they  would  surely  have  described  it. 
No  other  miracle  was  so  important  in  itself 
or  in  its  consequences;  and  it  is  therefore  in- 
credible that  they  should  have  been  ignorant 
of  it,  or  should  have  passed  it  by  in  silence, 
if  it  had  been  really  performed.  In  reply  to 
this  objection  it  may  be  said,  in  the  first 
place,  that  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for 
the  opinion  that  any  one  of  the  Evangelists 
related  all  the  important  discourses  and  deeds 
of  Christ  with  which  he  was  familiar.  Under 
the  guiding  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  each 
one  of  them  prepared  a  written  account  of 


240 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XI. 


45  Then  many  of  the  Jews  which  came  to  Mary,  "and  145      Many  therefore  of  the  Jews,  who  came  to  Mary 
had  seen  the  things  which  Jesus  did,  believed  ou  him.  |       and  beheld  i  that  which  he  did,  believed  on  him. 

a  sh.  2  :  23 :  10 :  42  ;  12:11,  18. 1  Many  ancieut  autborities  read,  the  things  which  he  did. 


certain  events,  parables,  and  sayings  of  the 
Lord,  which  would  fairly  represent  his 
ministry,  but  he  was  kept  at  the  same  time 
from  the  folly  of  attempting  to  put  on  record 
all  that  he  knew.  In  the  selection  of  par- 
ticulars to  be  recorded,  the  character  and  ob- 
ject of  each  Evangelist  may  have  been  influ- 
ential, but  in  every  instance  there  must  have 
been  a  selection.  It  may  be  said,  in  the 
second  place,  that  the  Synoptical  Gospels 
omit  nearly  all  the  ministry  of  Jesus  in  Jeru- 
salem and  Judea,  with  the  single  exception 
of  what  he  said  and  did  at  the  last  passover. 
But  they  do  this  for  some  other  reason  than 
ignorance,  since  they  were  aware  that  Christ 
was  acquainted  in  Jerusalem.  (Matt.  23 :  37 ;  Luke 
10:38.)  "Cyril  remarks  that  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus  furnishes  the  true  explanation'of  the 
plaudits  and  hosannas  of  our  Lord's  tri- 
umphal entry  into  Jerusalem,  as  described  by 
the  Synoptist?."— .S'c/m^.  It  is  by  no  means 
necessary  for  us  to  show  why  the  earlier  Gos- 
pels were  limited  geographically,  or  to  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  and  the  regions 
round  about;  the  mere  fact  accounts  for  their 
silence  concerning  this  miracle.  This  is  the 
view  also  of  Mej^er. 

Little  need  be  said  in  support  of  this  most 
wonderful  story  to  those  whose  hearts  are 
open  to  the  divine  sweetness  and  greatness  of 
the  Saviour's  character.  But  it  may  be  well 
to  notice  a  few  points.  The  truthfulness  of 
this  narrative  is  involved  in  the  character  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel.  For  in  spirit  and  style, 
it  is  of  a  piece  with  the  narrative  parts  of  the 
Gospel,  and  it  is  trustworthy,  if  they  are  trust- 
worthy. But,  as  we  have  had  frequent  occa- 
sion to  observe,  they  afford  evidence  of  being 
written  by  an  appreciative  eye-witness  Again, 
the  events  which  follow  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
presuppose  the  truthfulness  of  this  narrative. 
They  must  be  fictitious,  if  this  is  fictitious.' 
"How  could  the  writer  have  assigned  to  a 
purely  fictitious  event  so  decisive  a  part  in  the 
organism  of  the  life  of  Jesus?" — Godet.  Still 
further,  the  recital  is  so  life-like  and  graphic 
as  to  forbid  the  thought  of  invention.  "No 
narrative  of  this  apostle  is  pervaded  by  so  in- 
tense a  glow  and  rapid  liveliness  of  description 
as  this,  in  which  he  undertakes  to  set  forth  in 


one  great  picture  the  trembling  of  Jesus  for 
the  life  of  his  friend,  the  attendant  struggle 
with  the  darkness  of  the  world,  and  the  calm- 
ness and  joy  of  victory,  prominent  over  all, 
and  undisturbed  from  first  to  last ;  while  min- 
gled with  these  are  the  still  higher  tones  of 
his  consciousness  of  Messianic  glory,  and  of 
its  powerful  confirmation." — Ewald.  "The 
recital  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  is  dis- 
tinguished among  all  the  narratives  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  by  its  special  vivacity  and  dra- 
matic movement.  The  personages  are  sketched 
by  a  hand  at  once  firm  and  delicate.  Nowhere 
is  the  relation  of  Christ  with  his  disciples  set 
forth  in  a  manner  so  life-like.  We  are  initi- 
ated hy  this  recital  to  this  intimate  commu- 
nion, this  atfeetionate  exchange  of  thoughts 
and  feelings  which  took  place  between  the 
Master  and  his  own.  The  disciples  are  pre- 
sented in  the  most  attractive  manner,  with 
their  simple  freedom,  and  their  noble  devo- 
tion. The  Jews  themselves,  of  whom  we 
know  little  by  our  Evangelist  save  their  opin- 
ionated resistance  to  the  efforts  of  Jesus,  here 
appear  under  an  aspect  less  displeasing,  as 
friends  of  the  two  afflicted  sisters;  and  in  the 
Jew  is  discovered  the  man.  But,  above  all, 
how  clear  and  delicate  is  the  study  of  the 
character  of  the  two  women  ;  with  what  fine- 
ness of  touch  and  psychological  depth  is  the 
difference  of  their  conduct  depicted." — Deut- 
inger,  in  Godet.  And  Meyer  expresses  the 
judgment  of  every  ingenuous  student  when 
he  declares  that  "the  narrative  is  distinguished 
for  its  thoughtful  tenderness,  certainty,  and 
truthfulness." 

45-57.  Effect  of  the  Miracle. 

45.  Then  many  of  the  Jews  which 
(luho)  came  to  3Iary,  etc.  If  a  rigid  con- 
struction of  the  Greek  be  insisted  on,  the  rel- 
ative who  does  not  represent  the  Jews,  but 
many  of  the  Jews  ;  and  John  does  not  say 
that  "of  the  Jews  who  came  to  Mary  and  be- 
held what  Jesus  did,  many  believed  on  him; 
but,  rather,  that  "manj'  of  the  Jews  came  to 
Mary,  beheld  what  Jesus  did,  and  believed 
on  him."  This  interpretation  is  now  given  to 
the  verse  by  Meyer,  Alford,  Watkins.  The 
objection  to  it  will  be  considered  below.  But 
according  to  any  tenable  interpretation  of  the 


Ch.  XI.] 


JOHN. 


241 


46  But  some  of  theni  went  their  ways  to  the  Phar- 
isees, and  told  them  what  things  Jesus  had  done. 

47  "  Then  gathered  the  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees 
a  council,  and  said,  '  What  do  we?  for  this  man  doeth 
many  miracles. 


46  But  some  of  them   wcTit  away  to   the   Pharisees, 
and  told  them  the  thiuj^s  which  Jesus  had  done. 

47  The  chief   priests    therefore   and    the    I'harisees 
gathered  a  council,  and  said,  What  do  we?  for  this 


a  Ps.  2:  2;  Matt.  26:  3;  Mark  14:  1 ;  Luke  22:  2 b  ch.  12  :  19  ;  Acts  4:  16. 


verse,  it  plainly  affirms  that  many  of  the  Jews 
were  led  to  believe  in  Jesus  by  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Lazarus.  This  was  a  miracle  that 
convinced  some  who  were  by  no  means  will- 
ing to  yield. 

46.  But  some  of  them  went  their  Avays 
(better,  away)  to  the  Pharisees,  and  told 
them  what  things  Jesus  had  done.     If  all 
the  Jews  who  came  to  Mary  and  beheld  what 
Jesus  did,  believed  in  him,  it  follows  (we  are 
told)  that  those  who  went  away  and  told  the 
Piiarisees  what  he  had  done,  were  believers  in 
him  at  the  time,  and  made  their  report  to  his 
bitter  enemies  with  no  unfriendliness  to  him. 
This  is  possible,  without  doubt,  but  it  seems 
to  be  very  improbable.     And  if  this  had  been 
the  Evangelist's  meaning,  he  would,  I  think, 
have   coupled    this   verse   with   the  45th    by 
"and,"  instead  of  but.     Thus:  "Many  of  the 
Jews  believed   in   Jesus,  and   some  of  them 
went  away  to  the  Pharisees  and  told  them 
what  he  had  done"  —  "with  well-ineaning  in- 
tent, in  order  to  put  them  in  possession  of  a 
correct  account  of  the  act,  and  to  bear  wit- 
ness to  them  of  the  miracle." — Meyer.     As, 
however,  the  Evangelist,  by  means  of  but, 
contrasts  some  of  them  who  went  away  with 
others  who  did  not  go  away,  we  believe  that 
the   former  were  hardened   instead   of  con- 
vinced by  the  miracle,  and  that  they  made 
their  report  with  the  expectation  that  it  would 
hasten  action  against  Jesus.     But  if  this  was 
the  case,  it  will  be  necessary  to  adopt  one  of 
two  alternatives.     Either  the  writer  was  not 
formally  accurate  in  his  use  of  the  Greek,  but 
admitted  an  anacoluthon  in  this  place  (a  sup- 
position which   could  not  be  refuted  by  the 
style  of  the  Book  of  Revelation),  or  the  word 
them,  in  the  expression  some  of  them,  re- 
fers to  the  Jews  in  general,  (ver.  45.)    The  lat- 
ter  view   is   maintained   by   Godet,  who   re- 
marks:  "I   think  it   unnecessary  to  include 
the  'some'  (ni/es)  of  this  verse  in  the  category' 
of  the  numerous  visitors  of  Mary  and  Martha 
who  became  believers  (ver.  45),  but  that  the  ex- 
pression  'of  them'  (ver. 26)  refers  to  the  Jews 
in  general  ('lovSaiuiv,  ver.  45.)    There  were  cer- 


tainly other  Jews  than  those  of  ver.  45,  who 
came  to  visit  the  sisters — Jews  whose  sympa- 
thy with  the  sisters  did  not  predispose  them  in 
favor  of  Jesus.  These  were  the  persons  who, 
faithful  to  their  role  as  Jeix}s,  carried  without 
delay  the  great  news  to  the  Pharisees,  who 
were  the  bitterest  enemies  of  Jesus."  It 
seems  to  me  that  either  of  these  solutions  of 
the  difficulty  is  preferable  to  that  of  Meyer. 

47.  Then  (better,  therefore)  gathered  the 
chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees  a  council. 
By   reason  of  the   account  thus  brought  to 
them   of    the    resurrection  of   Lazarus,   the 
Pharisees     communicated     with     the    chief 
priests,  some  of  whom  were  Sadducees,  and 
they  at  once  called  a  meeting  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin.     Matters,  as  they  felt,  were  approaching 
a  crisis.     The  great  Pretender,  as  they  would 
prove  him  to  be,  was  at  their  doors  again, 
and,  according  to  this  new  report,  had  per- 
formed, or  seemed  to  perform,  a  miracle  of 
surpassing  interest.     Indeed,  a  considerable 
number  of  their  own  party  had  been  led  by 
it  to  look  upon  him  as  the  expected  Messiah. 
What  less   could  they  do  than  suminon  an 
extra  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin  to  consider 
the  course  to  betaken  in  such  an  emergency? 
The  Sanhedrin  Cs.witpi.ov')  was  the  highest  tri- 
bunal of  the  Jews,  having  its  seat  at  Jerusa- 
lem,   and    being    composed  of    seventy-one 
members — chief  priests,   elders,   and  scribes. 
In  the  time  of  Christ  a  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers were  Pharisees,  but   an  influential  mi- 
nority, Sadducees.     The  high  priest  was  gen- 
erally president.     It  was  accustomed  to  meet 
daily,  except  on  the  Sabbath,  or  a  great  feast 
day.     Its  sessions  were  commonly  held  in  a 
hall  which  was  "supposed  by  Lightfoottohave 
been  situated  in  the  southeast  corner  of  one  of 
the  courts  near  the  temple."      "In  special 
exigencies   it  seems  to  have  met  in  the  resi- 
dence  of  the  high   priest."     The  cases  that 
could  be  brought  before  it  in  the  first  instance 
were  such   as  related  to  a  whole  tribe,  to  a 
false  prophet,  to  the  high  priest,  to  an  arbi- 
trary  war,    or    to  blasphemy.      And    said. 
What  do  we?  (or,   What  are  we  doing?)    A 


242 


JOHK 


[Ch.  XI. 


48  If  we  let  him  thus  alone,  all  men  will  believe  on 
hiin  ;  and  the  Romans  shall  come  and  take  away  boiii 
our  place  and  nation. 

49  Andoneotthem,  raoTwed  o  Caiaphas,  being  the  high 
priest  that  same  year,  said  unto  them,  Ye  know  noth- 
ing at  all, 

5U  '  Nor  consider  that  it  is  expedient  for  us,  that  one 
man  should  die  for  the  people,  and  that  the  whole  na- 
tion perish  not. 


48  man  doeth  many  signs.  If  we  let  him  thus  alone, 
all  men  will  believe  on  him:  and  the  Romans  will 
come  and  take  away  both  our  place  and  our  nation. 

49  But  a  certain  one  of  them,  (aiaphas,  being  high 
priest  that  year,  said  unto  them.  Ye  know  nothing 

50  at  all,  nor  do  ye  take  account  that  it  is  expedient 
for  you  that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people,  and 


a  Luke  3:  2;  ch.  18:  U:  Acts-t:  6 h  ch.  18:  14. 


question  of  censure,  designed  to  make  them 
do  otherwise,  and  finding  its  support  in  the 
next  clause.  For  this  man  doeth  many 
miracles  (lit.,  signs).  Watkins  would  unite 
the  two  clauses  in  a  single  question,  thus: 
"What  do  we,  seeing  that  this  man  doeth 
many  miracles?"  But  the  sense  is  nearly 
the  same  with  this,  as  with  the  common  punc- 
tuation. Their  words  show  that  they  regard 
immediate  action  on  their  part  as  indispen- 
sable. The  ground  is  giving  way  under  their 
feet.  Bnt  what  they  say  appears  inconsistent 
in  itself;  for  while  they  refer  to  Jesus  con- 
temptuously as  this  man,  they  seem  to 
admit  the  reality  of  his  many  signs.  Prob- 
ably, however,  their  words  were  merelj'  an 
accommodation,  for  brevity's  sake,  to  com- 
mon speech,  while  their  looks  and  tones  and 
gestures  revealed  their  disbelief  in  Jesus.  It 
is  indeed  possible  that  they  mean  to  concede 
the  extraordinary  character  of  his  works,  but 
without  conceding  that  they  are  wrought  by 
divine  power. 

48.  If  we  let  him  thus  alone,  all  men 
will  believe  on  him,  etc.  In  this  expression 
of  fear  the  Sanhedrists  are,  no  doubt,  per- 
fectly honest.  They  believe  that  any  great 
increase  of  the  followers  of  Jesus  will  arouse 
the  suspicions  of  Kome  and  lead  to  severe 
measures.  By  our  place,  Jerusalem  is  com- 
monly suppo.«ed  to  be  meant;  for  it  was  the 
seat  of  the  Sanhedrin  and  the  centre  of  its 
powerful  influence.  The  members  of  this 
court  claim  it,  therefore,  as  in  a  special  sense 
their  own.  In  like  manner,  filled  with  ego- 
ti-sm,  they  think  of  the  Jewish  nation  as 
theirs,  and  of  any  process  by  which  the  na- 
tion would  be  withdrawn  from  their  religious 
control  as  a  taking  away  of  their  nation.  But 
the  question  has  been  raised  whether  the  San- 
hedrists would  be  apt  to  speak  of  the  Romans 
as  taking  away  their  place,  if  they  meant  by 
their  place  Jerusalem.  Probably  not,  unless 
it  were  in  the  sense  of  taking  it  from  the7n — 
from  their  control,   so    that    they   could  no 


longer  think  or  speak  of  it  as  their  place. 
And  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  nation.  It 
is  scarcely  probable  that  the  Sanhedrists 
feared  the  transportation  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  whole  nation  to  some  distant  land  by  the 
Romans.  "The  Sanhedrists  apprehend  that 
the  Romans  .  .  .  would  enter  Jerusalem  and 
remove  the  city  as  well  as  the  people  .  .  from 
the  rule  of  the  Sanhedrin,  because  it  knew 
so  badly  how  to  maintain  order." — Meyer. 
This  interpretation  does  not  differ  in  result 
from  that  of  Watkins,  who  supposes  that  by 
our  place  is  meant  our  standing  or  position 
as  leaders  of  the  people,  while  it  agrees  better 
with  the  expression  both  our  place  and 
nation;  for  this  exp-ression  blends  together 
the  ideas  of  place  and  nation,  which  are  more 
homegeneous,  if  the  words  refer  to  the  people 
of  Jerusalem  and  the  nation  at  large,  than  if 
they  refer  to  the  religious  position  of  the 
speakers  and  to  the  nation  at  large. 

49,  50.  But  one  of  them,  named  Caia- 
phas (omit  named),  being  the  high  priest 
(omit  the)  that  year.  According  to  Jo- 
sephus,  Joseph  Caiaphas  was  high  priest 
eleven  years,  from  A.  T>.  25  to  a.  d.  36,  and 
so  during  the  whole  administration  of  Pontius 
Pilate.  His  father-in-law  was  Annas.  The 
Evangelist  says  that  he  was  high  priest  that 
same  year,  not  because  the  high  priests  were 
then  frequently  changed,  but  because  that  was 
a  memorable  year — the  year  in  which  the  Lord 
was  crucified.  Said  unto  them,  Ye  know 
nothing  at  all.  This  language  is  not  want- 
ing in  force,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  its 
courtes3'.  Caiaphas  sees  no  ground  for  hesi- 
tation. He  is  absolutely  selfish,  and  the  way 
to  personal  safety  seems  to  him  plain. 

50.  Nor  consider— (wor  do  ye  take  ac- 
count.— Rev.  Ver. ) — for  a  moment's  reckoning 
would  show  what  is  prudent  for  us— that  it 
is  expedient  for  us — there  is  here  no  con- 
science, no  inquiry  as  to  what  is  right  or 
wrong  in  the  case;  self-interest  is  supreme — 
that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people — 


Ch.  XL] 


JOHN. 


243 


51  And  this  spake  he  not  of  himself:  but  being  high 
priest  that  year,  he  prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die 
for  tliat  nation  ; 

52  And  «  not  for  that  nation  only,  'but  that  also  he 
should  gatlier  together  in  oue  the  children  of  God  that 
were  scattered  abroad. 


51  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not.  Now  this  he  said 
not  of  himself:  but  being  high  priest  that  year,  he 
prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die  for  the   nation ; 

52  and  not  for  the  nation  only,  but  that  he  might  also 
gather  together  into  oue  the  children  of  (iod  that 


;  Isa.  49  :  6  ;  1  John  2:2 6  ch.  10 :  16 ;  Eph.  2  :  U,  15,  16, 17. 


considered  here  as  a  theocratic  coninnmity 
(Aad?) — and  that  the  whole  nation  perish 

not — or  the  national  existence  of  the  Jews 
come  to  an  end.  "This  judgment,"  says 
Godet,  "is  made  the  more  remarkable  by  the 
contrast  between  the  divine  truth  of  its  con- 
tent, and  the  diabolical  purpose  of  him  who 
utters  it."  There  is  nothing  in  the  language 
of  the  high  priest  which  tends  to  a  favorable 
view  of  his  character. 

51.  And  (rather,  now,  or,  but]  this  he 
spake  not  of  (better, /row)  himself) — i.  e., 
not  from  himself  alone.  (Comp.  Notes  on  5: 
19,  30;  8 :  28.)  It  had  a  source  back  of  him- 
self, in  the  Divine  Mind.  He  prophesied, 
etc.  In  other  words,  his  language  was  virtu- 
ally a  prophecy  to  this  effect.  And,  there- 
fore, if  the  testimony  of  the  inspired  Evan- 
gelist is  to  be  accepted  without  qualification, 
the  manifestly  selfish  spirit  of  Caiaphas  was 
under  the  directing  influence  of  God  to  such 
an  extent  that  his  judgment  expressed  a  great 
truth,  and  foreshadowed  a  great  event  of  the 
divine  administration.  But  we  are  not  told 
that  he  was  conscious  of  any  divine  illumina- 
tion or  influence,  like  that  which  enabled 
Balaam  to  foresee  the  future  prosperity  of 
Israel ;  and  we  do  not  imagine  that  he  thought 
himself  to  be  uttering  a  prophecy.  For  his 
language  has  not  the  form  of  prophecy.  This 
was  rather  a  case  of  unconscious  prediction — 
a  case  in  which  God  "disposes,"  and  man 
"proposes"  accordingly — a  case  in  which  God 
"makes  the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  him" 
(ps.76:  10) — a  case  included  in  the  apostle's 
declaration:  "Him,  being  delivered  ac- 
cording to  the  determinate  counsel  and  fore- 
knowledge of  God,  ye  have  taken,  and  by 
wicked  hands  have  crucified  and  slain." 
(Acts2:23.)  (Comp.  Gcn.  50:  20.)  There  is  no 
valid  objection  to  this  view.  Indeed,  it  is 
justified  by  the  proper  idea  of  God.  For  a 
being  who  did  not  and  could  not  thus  direct 
the  actions  of  men  without  destroying  their 
freedom,  and  who  could  not  thereby  bring 
good  out  of  evil,  would  not  be  recognized  by 
any  servant  of  Jehovah  as  his  God,  and  would 


not  be  able  to  assure  our  hearts  of  the  ultimate 
victory  of  right  over  wrong,  in  a  universe 
which  sin  has  entered.  But  the  Evangelist 
manifestly  connects  the  prophetic  character 
of  Caiaphas'  language  with  the  fact  that  he 
was  high  priest  that  year.  How  is  this  to 
be  understood  ?  Does  the  expression  that 
year  simply  mean,  at  that  time,  so  that  the 
whole  emphasis  rests  on  the  fact  of  his  being 
high  priest  when  he  spoke  ?  Or  does  it  mean, 
during  that  memorable  year,  so  that  the  ^ar- 
ticular  year  is  also  emphasized  as  having 
something  to  do  with  the  prophetic  character 
of  his  words?  I  am  inclined  to  the  latter  in- 
terpretation, especially  because  it  gives  to 
that  year  the  sense  which  it  has  in  verse  49. 
Accordingly,  both  the  oflSce  of  Caiaphas,  and 
the  year  in  which  he  was  now  holding  it,  were 
reasons  why,  through  the  guidance  of  God, 
his  opinion  should  be  prophetic  of  the  trans- 
cendent reality  which  was  soon  to  be  wit- 
nessed. "In  the  Old  Testament,"  remarks 
Godet,  "the  normal  centre  of  the  theocratic 
people  is  not  the  royal  house,  but  the  priest- 
hood. In  all 'moments  decisive  for  the  life  of 
the  people,  it  is  the  high  priest  who  receives, 
by  virtue  of  a  prophetic  gift  which  is  im- 
parted to  him  for  the  moment,  the  decision  of 
God  for  the  deliverance  of  his  people.  (Num.27: 
21;  isam.  30: 7,  sq.)  John  does  not  pretend  that, 
speaking  generally,  all  that  the  high  priest 
might  say  was  prophetic.  He  only  judges 
that  at  this  decisive  moment,  Caiaphas,  as  an 
accredited  organ  of  God  with  his  people,  per- 
formed the  part  that  was  assigned  him  for 
emergencies  of  this  kind." 

52.  And  not  for  that  (lit.,  the)  nation 
only,  but  that  also,  etc.  This  wider  and 
higher  aim  of  the  Saviour's  death  is  added 
by  the  Evangelist.  It  was  not  implied  in 
the  words  of  Caiaphas,  but  it  was  important 
in  itself,  and  specially  important  in  the  apos- 
tolic age.  "When  this  Gospel  was  written, 
there  was  still  reason  to  seize  every  oppor- 
tunitj^  to  proclaim  that  the  new  religion  was 
intended  for  all  mankind,  and  that  there  were 
some  of  the  elect  in  every  nation.     The  one. 


244 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XI. 


53  Then  from  that  day  forth  they  took  counsel  to- 
gether for  to  put  him  to  death. 

54  Jesus  "theretore  walked  no  more  openly  among 
the  Jews;  but  went  tlience  unto  a  country  near  to 
the  wilderness,  into  a  city  called  *Ephraim,  and  there 
continued  with  his  disciples. 

55  =And  the  Jews'  passover  was  nigh  at  hand:  and 
many  went  out  of  the  country  up  to  Jerusalem  before 
the  passover,  to  purify  themselves. 


53  are  scattered  abroad.  So  from  that  day  forth 
they  took  counsel  that  they  might  put  him  to 
death. 

54  Jesus  therefore  walked  no  more  openly  among 
the  Jews,  but  departed  thence  into  the  country  near 
to  the  wilderness,  into  a  city  called  Ephraim;  and 

55  there  he  tarried  with  the  disciples.  >;ow  the  pass- 
over  of  the  Jews  was  at  hand  :  and  many  went  up 
to  Jerusalem  out  of  the  country  before  the  passover. 


ach.  4:  1,  3  :  7:1 h  See  •.!  Chion.  13  :  19 c  ch.  2  :  13  ;  5:  1 ;  6  :  4. 


or  one  thing  {tv),  into  which  he  would  gather 
them  together  is  the  unity  of  faith,  or  a  spir- 
itual unity.  There  is  here  no  reference  to  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,  as  organized  into  visible 
churches,  or  a  visible  church. 

53.  Then  (or,  therefore,)  from  that  day 
forth  they  took  counsel,  etc.  Therefore, — 
i.  e,  in  consequence  of  the  words  of  Cuiaphas, 
and  of  the  resolution  that  was  reached  at  this 
sudden  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin.  They  had 
long  cherished  a  deadly  hostility  to  Christ ; 
they  had  often  consulted  together  how  they 
should  put  him  out  of  the  way  ;  but  from 
tliis  time  onward  their  purpose  was  more  set- 
tled and  their  planning  more  open.  John 
often  uses  the  same  word  to  denote  a  feeling 
or  course  of  conduct,  which  varies  in  degree, 
though  it  is  the  same  in  kind.  The  persecut- 
ing spirit  is  not  always  equally  lirm.  There 
is  progress  in  mortal  hatred. 

54.  Jesus  therefore  Avalked  no  more 
openly  among  the  JeAvs.  Observe  the  use 
of  the  familiar  designation,  the  Jews.  It 
still  means  the  dominant  party  resident  in 
Jerusalem  and  the  suburbs  of  that  city,  and 
represented  by  the  Sanhedrin.  Notice,  also, 
the  tense  of  the  verb  Avalked,  which  might 
be  translated  was  rvalking.  His  sphere  of 
itinerant  labor  was  no  longer  among  the 
Jews.  He  did  not  continue  to  go  about 
among  them  and  do  the  work  of  his  ministrj'. 
But  went  thence  (lit.,  away  from  there) 
into  a  (the)  country  near  to  the  wilder- 
ness, into  a  city  called  Ephraim,  etc. 
The  locality  of  Ephraim  has  not  been  satis- 
factorily ascertained.  Dr.  Kobinson  is  in 
favor  of  regarding  the  Ephraim  of  this  verse, 
the  Ephraim  of  2  Chron.  13:  19,  the  Ophrah 
of  Josh.  18:  23  and  1  Sam.  13:  17,  and  the 
Ephron  of  Eusebius  and  .Jerome,  as  the  same 
place.  "  According  to  John  11 :  54,  the  place 
in  question  was  situated  near  the  desert;  ac- 
cording to  the  Old  Testament  and  .Tosephus, 
it  was  not  far  from  Bethel ;  acccording  to 
Eusebius  and    Jerome,  it    lay    five    Koman 


miles  from  Bethel,  in  the  eastern  quar- 
ter, and  nearly  twenty  Roman  miles  .  .  . 
north  of  Jerusalem.  Now,  taking  all  these 
specifications  together,  they  apply  with  great 
exactness  to  the  lofty  site  of  the  modern 
Taiyibeh,  two  hours  northeast  of  Bethel,  and 
six  hours  and  twenty  minutes  north-northeast 
of  Jerusalem  (reckoning  three  Roman  miles 
to  the  hour),  adjacent  to  and  overlooking  the 
broad  tract  of  desert  country  lying  between  it 
and  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  and  also  along 
the  western  side  of  the  Dead  Sea ;  a  position 
so  remarkable,  that  one  cannot  suppose  it  to 
have  been  left  unoccupied  in  ancient  times.  . 
According  to  Matt.  19:  1  and  Mark  10:  1,  our 
Lord's  last  approach  to  Jerusalem  was  by 
way  of  Perea  and  Jericho.  At  Ephraim  he 
could  overlook  the  whole  of  Perea,  as  well  as 
all  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  ;  and  nothing 
would  be  more  natural  for  him  than  to  pass 
over  into  that  region,  and  there  preach  the 
gospel  on  his  way  back  to  Jerusalem  for  the 
last  time.  Here,  then,  John  harmonizes  with 
Matthew  and  Mark;  according  to  whom 
great  multitudes  followed  Jesus  on  this  jour- 
ney." ("Bib.  Sac,"  vol.  IL,  p.  399.)  The 
period  of  Christ's  sojourn  at  this  time  in 
Ephraim  cannot  have  been  very  many  weeks. 
55.  And  (or,  now)  the  Jews'  passover 
was  nigh  ...  to  purify  themselves. 
They  were  not  required  by  anj'  special  law  to 
make  these  purifications  at  Jerusalem  (see 
Gen.  35:  2;  Ex.  19:  10,  11;  Num.  9:  10,  sq. ; 
2  Chron.  30:  17,  18),  but  it  is  easy  to  suggest 
many  reasons  for  their  preferring  to  make 
them  there.  Especially  would  their  li- 
ability to  encounter  things  common  or 
unclean  on  their  way  to  the  holy  city 
through  places  more  or  less  contaminated 
by  the  presence  of  foreigners,  lead  them 
to  defer  their  ceremonial  purifications  till 
thej'  reach  Jerusalem.  How  little  did  thej' 
imagine  their  need  of  a  higher  purifica- 
tion, of  cleansing  by  the  blood  of  Jesus !  By 
the  country  is  probably  meant,  not  that  part 


Ch.  XII.] 


JOHK 


245 


56  "Then  souglit  tlicy  for  Jesus,  and  spake  among 
themselves,  as  they  stood  iu  the  temple,  What  think 
ye,  that  he  will  not  come  to  the  least? 

57  Now  both  the  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees  had 
given  a  commandment,  that,  if  any  man  knew  where 
ne  were,  he  should  shew  it,  that  they  might  take  him. 


56  to  purify  themselves.  They  sought  therefore  for 
Jesus,  and  spake  one  with  anotlier,  as  they  stood  in 
the  temple.  What  tliink  ye?    That  he  will  not  come 

57  to  the  feast?  Now  the  chief  priests  and  the  Phari- 
sees had  given  commandment,  that,  if  any  maa 
knew  where  he  was,  he  should  shew  it,  that  they 
might  take  him. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


THEN  Jesus  six  days  before  the  passover  came  to 
Bethany,  '  where    Lazarus   was   which  had    been 
dead,  whom  he  raised  from  the  dead. 


1     Jesus  therefore  six  days  before  the  passover  came 
to  Bethany,  where  Lazarus  was,  whom  Jesus  raised 


och.  7:  ll....ftch.  11  : 1,  43. 


of  the  country  to  which  Jesus  had  gone,  but 
the  country  in  general  as  opposed  to  the  city. 

56.  Then  (or,  therefore)  sought  they 
{were  seeking)  for  Jesus,  and  spake  (or, 
were  speaking)  among  themselves,  etc.  As 
a  result  of  the  recent  miracle  in  Bethany,  and 
of  its  well  known  effect  on  the  rulers,  the 
people  from  the  country  were  more  thtin  ever 
excited  about  Jesus,  and  were  seeking  him 
day  b3'  day  in  every  new  arrival  of  pilgrims. 
But  they  were  extremely  doubtful  whether 
he  would  make  his  appearance  at  the  festival, 
and  were  often  saying  to  one  another : 
"What  is  your  opinion?  Is  it  that  he  cer- 
tainly will  not  come  to  the  feast?"  They 
regard  it  as  barely  possible  that  he  will  come, 
but  as  far  enough  from  probable. 

57.  Now  both  the  chief  priests,  etc.  It  is 
reasonably  supposed  that  this  commandment 
had  been  given  in  the  name  and  authority  of 
the  Sanhedrin,  and  in  pursuance  of  a  decision 
reached  at  the  meeting  described  in  verses 
47-50,  or  by  the  consultations  that  followed, 
(ver.  53.)  These  it  was  which  rendered  the 
people  so  very  doubtful  whether  Jesus  would 
come  to  the  feast. 


Ch.  12:  1-8.  Supper  in  Bethany. 

1.  Then  Jesus,  six  days  before  the 
passover,  came  to  Bethany,  Avhere  Laz- 
arus was,  whom  he  (Jesus)  raised  from 
the  dead.  From  Ephraim,  the  place  where 
Jesus  had  been  residing  a  few  weeks,  he  may 
have  gone  northward  through  Samaria,  and 
then  eastward  through  a  part  of  Galilee  into 
Perea  (comp.  Luke  17:  11 ;  Matt.  19:  1 ;  Mark 
10:  1),  or  he  may  have  gone  into  Perea  di- 
rectly, without  making  at  this  time  the  circuit 
referred  to.  Harmonists  are  not  yet  agreed 
on  this  point.  But  it  is  considered  certain 
that  he  visited  Jericho,  if  not  also  Perea,  and 


that  he  returned  by  way  of  Jericho  to  Beth- 
any. If  we  assume  that  he  made  the  circuit 
through  Samaria,  Galilee,  and  Perea,  to  Jeri- 
cho, and  that  he  began  this  journey  about  the 
middle  of  March,  the  following  events  may 
be  assigned  (see  Clark's  "Harmony  of  the 
Gospels")  to  the  journey,  which  occupied 
not  far  from  two  weeks,  viz. :  The  cleansing 
often  lepers  (Luke  17: 11-19) ;  how  the  kingdom 
of  God  would  come  (Lukei7:2J-37) ;  parables  of 
the  importunate  widow,  and  of  the  Pharisee 
and  publican  (Luke  18:  i-u) ;  answer  concerning 
divorce    (iiaa.ia:  1-12;  Mark lo:  1-12)  ;    blcssing   the 

little  children  (Matt.  19:  13-15;  Mark  lO:  I3-I6;  Luke  IS: 
15-17)  ;    the  rich    young  ruler  (Matt.  19:  16-30;  MarklO; 

17-31 ;  Luke  18 :  18-30) ;  parable  of  the  laborers  in 
the  vineyard  (Matt.  20: 1-16) ;  prediction  of  his 
own  death  and  resurrection  (Matt.  20: 17-19;  Markio: 
32-34;  Luke  18: 31-34);  ambitious  request  of  James 
and  John  (Matt.  20:20-28;  Mark  10:35-45) ;  two  blind 
men  healed  near  Jericho  (Matt.  20:29-34;  Mark  10 : 
46-52;  Luke  18: 35-43);  yisit  to  the  house  of  Zac- 
chseus,  and  parable  of  the  pounds  (Luke  19:1-27); 
Jesus  sought  at  Jerusalem  (Joim  11 :  55-57) ;  his 
journey  from  Jericho   to  Bethany  (Luke  19 :  28; 

John  12:  1.) 

It  is  probable  that  Jesus,  in  company  with 
his  disciples  and  other  pilgrims  to  the  Pass- 
over, left  Jericho  on  Friday,  at  the  dawn  of 
day,  and  reached  Bethany  in  the  early  even- 
ing, after  the  Sabbath  had  begun.  For  it  was 
lawful  to  go  a  short  distance  on  the  Sabbath  ; 
and  travelers  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem  might 
occasionally  find  themselves,  at  the  close  of 
the  sixth  day  of  the  week,  so  near  to  Bethany 
that  they  could  finish  their  journey  thither 
without  breaking  the  law  of  rest  for  the 
seventh  day.  In  this  reckoning  we  assume 
that  the  Passover  occurred  on  Friday;  so  that 
the  six  days  here  mentioned  reach  back  from 
the  beginning  of  the  Friday  on  which  Jesus 
suffered  to  the  beginning  of  the  previous  Sat- 


246 


JOHN. 


[Oh.  XII. 


2  "There  they  made  him  a  supper;  and  Martha 
served;  but  Lazarus  was  one  of  them  that  sal  at  the 
table  with  him. 

3  Theu  looli  <>  Mary  a  pound  of  ointment  of  spikenard, 
very  costly,  and  anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  wiped 
his  feet  with  her  hair:  and  the  house  was  tilled  with 
the  odour  of  the  ointment. 


2  from  the  dead.  So  they  made  him  a  supper  there: 
and  Martha  served ;  but  Lazarus  was  one  of  them 

3  that  sat  at  meat  with  him.  Mary  therefore  took  a 
pound  of  ointment  of  -pure  uard,  very  precious, 
and  anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  wiped  his  feet 
with  her  hair:  and  the  house  was  tilled  with  the 


a  Matt.  26:6;  Mark  11:  3 b  Luke  10:  38,39;  ch.  11 :  2. 1  Or,  liquid  nard. 


urda\'.  Jesus  remained  over  the  Sabbath  in 
Bethany,  and  on  the  first  day  of  the  week 
made  his  triumphal  entrance  into  Jerusalem. 
Thus,  even  before  his  resurrection,  was  special 
honor  put  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

The  words,  where  Lazarus  was,  whom 
he  raised  from  the  dead,  were  added,  not 
because  they  were  necessary  to  distinguish 
this  Bethany  from  another  east  of  the  Jordan 
(see  Note  on  1 :  28),  but  because  the  writer's 
mind  was  full  of  tlie  great  event  to  which  he 
refers,  and  because  Liizarus  and  his  sisters 
were  prominent  in  the  "supper"  which  he  is 
about  to  describe.  The  words  of  the  Com. 
Ver.,  which  had  been  dead  (oTe^vrtKm),  may 
belong  to  the  genuine  text;  but  the  evidence 
of  early  manuscripts  and  versions /or  them  is 
overbalanced  by  that  against  them,  and  they 
may  therefore  be  safeh'  omitted. 

2.  There  they  made,  etc.,  {or,  therefore 
they  made  him  a  snpper  there,  etc.)  The  ref- 
erence is  to  the  principal  meal  of  the  day 
i&eWvov),  which,  though  it  was  served  at  a  late 
hour  in  the  afternoon,  answered  to  our  din- 
ner, rather  than  to  our  supper.  The  Evan- 
gelist does  not  mention  the  persons  by  whom 
this  dinner  was  given,  but  from  the  circum- 
stance that  Martha  served,  or,  was  serving, 
it  has  been  inferred  that  it  was  given  by  the 
sisters  and  Lazarus.  Yet  this  inference  is  ex- 
tremely precarious;  for  Martha  might  have 
served  at  the  house  of  a  friend,  even  as  the 
mother  of  .Jesus  appears  to  have  served  thus 
at  the  wedding  in  Cana  of  Galilee.  (See  2 :  3, 
sq.)  And  since  the  anointing  of  Jesus  by  a 
woman,  in  the  house  of  Simon  "the  leper" 
(see  Matt.  26:  6-16;  Mark  14:  3-11),  took 
place  near  this  time  in  Bethany,  and  strikingly 
resembled,  in  most  of  its  circumstances,  the 
anointing  here  described,  it  is  reasonable  to 
believe  that  the  three  narratives  describe  the 
same  event— that  the  dinner  was  held  at  the 
house  of  Simon,  and,  perhaps  (though  this  is 
hardly  the  best  view),  that  John  anticipates 
the  time  of  it  by  three  or  four  days,  because  it 
was  the  most  important  event  which  he  asso- 


ciated with  this  visit  of  the  Lord  to  Bethany. 
Says  Dr.  Hackett:  "This  fea.«t  being  the 
principal  event  which  John  associates  with 
Bethany,  during  these  last  days,  he  not  un- 
naturally inserts  the  account  of  the  feast  im- 
riiediately  after  speaking  of  the  arrival  in 
Bethany.  But  having  (so  to  speak)  discharged 
his  mind  of  that  recollection,  he  then  turns 
back  and  resumes  the  historical  order,  namely, 
that  on  the  next  day  after  coming  to  Bethany 
(12: 12,  £[.;,  Jesus  made  his  public  entry  into  Je- 
rusalem."—(Smith's  "Diet,  of  the  Bible," 
Am.  ed.,  IL,  p.  1372,  Note  a.)  But  "there  is 
nothing  whatever  in  Matthew's  account  to  fix 
the  time  of  the  feast;  and  both  the  structure 
of  his  Gospel  and  the  apparent  links  of  con- 
nection, in  this  particular  narrative,  are  con- 
sistent with  the  view  ordinarilj^  taken,  that  at 
ver.  6,  he  (Matthew)  goes  back  to  an  earlier 
event,  which  furnished  occasion  to  Judas  for 
furthering  the  design  of  the  rulers,  as  recorded 
in  the  first  verses  of  the  chapter." — Schaff. 
This  Simon  was  known  as  "the  leper,"  doubt- 
less because, he  had  sufl^"ered  from  that  terrible 
disease,  but  had,  perhaps,  been  healed  by  the 
Saviour.  Hence  his  desire  to  receive  Jesus 
into  his  house,  and  to  pay  him  honor,  even 
though  he  must  have  been  well  aware  of  the 
deadly  animosity  which  now  threatened  his 
life. 

3.  Then  took  Mary  (or,  Mary  therefore 
took)  a  pound  of  ointment  of  spikenard, 
very  costly  (or,  precious.)  If,  as  we  suppose, 
the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Mark  refer  to 
the  same  event,  they  difler  from  this  in  not 
giving  the  name  of  the  woinan  who  anointed 
Jesus.  This,  however,  is  not  surprising;  for 
the  reasons  which  led  them  to  pass  over  in 
silence  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  may  have  led 
them  to  speak  of  "a  woman,"  instead  of  giv- 
ing her  name.  The  Greek  (AiVpa)  litrn,  and 
the  Latin  libra,  are  generally  translated  pound, 
and  are  supposed  to  denote  a  weight  of  twelve 
ounces.  This  cannot  be  far  from  the  truth, 
though  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain  the  exact 
value  of  ancient  weights  and  measures.     The 


Cu.  XII.] 


JOHN. 


247 


4  Then  saith  one  of  his  disciples,  Judas  Iscariot,  Si- 
a>on's  .10)1,  which  should  betray  hiui, 

5  Why  was  uot  tliis  oiutiueiit  sold  for  three  hundred 
pence,  and  given  to  the  poor? 

6  This  he  said,  not  that  he  cared  for  the  poor;  but 
because  he  was  a  thief,  and  « had  the  bag,  and  bare 
what  was  put  therein. 


4  odour  of  the  ointment.     But  Judas  Iscariot,  one  of 

5  his  disciples,  who  should  betray  him,  saith,  Why 
was  not  this  ointment  sold  for. three  hundred  '  shil- 

6  lings,  and  given  to  the  poor?  Now  this  he  said, 
not  because  he  cared  for  the  poor;  but  because  lie 
was  a  thief,  and  having  the^bag  ^took  away  what 


a  oh.  13  :  29. 1  See  marginal  note  on  Matt.  18:  28. ...2  Or,  box 3  Or,  carried  what  wa) put  therein. 


spikenard  is  described  as  very  costly — the 
Greek  word  meaning,  probably,  "genuine," 
unadulterated  (though  the  meaning  is  not  per- 
fectly certain)  ;  and,  therefore,  very  costly, 
or  precious;  for  then,  as  now,  articles  were 
cheapened  by  adulteration.  Anointed  the 
feet  of  Jesus,  and  wiped  his  feet  with 
her  hair.  Matthew  and  Mark  speak  of  an 
"alabaster  box,"  which  contained  the  oint- 
ment. Matthew  says  that  she  "poured  it  on 
his  head,  as  he  sat  at  meat"  ;  and  Mark,  that 
"she  broke  the  box,  and  poured  it  on  his 
head."  These  different  particulars  are  con- 
sistent with  one  another;  but,  at  the  same 
time,  sufficiently  marked  to  prove  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  witnesses.  No  writer  of  a 
spurious  Gospel,  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  would  have  been  Jikely  to  omit  all 
notice  of  the  well-attested  pouring  of  the  oint- 
ment on  Jesus'  head,  and  to  affirm  an  anoint- 
ing of  his  feet — the  latter  being  a  mere  con- 
jecture of  his  own.  But  the  anointing  of 
Jesus'  feet,  if  it  was  performed  in  addition  to 
the  anointing  of  his  head,  would  naturally 
enough  make  a  deep  impression  on  the 
thoughtful  and  loving  spirit  of  John,  who 
was,  perhaps,  reclining  next  his  Lord;  and  it 
might,  therefore,  of  all  others,  be  the  one 
feature  of  the  anointing  that  he  would  remem- 
ber and  record.  And  the  house  was  filled 
with  the  odour.  A  fact  not  unworthy  of 
commemoration,  as  it  probably  drew  the  at- 
tention of  all  to  the  act  of  anointing.  Com- 
pare Cant.  1:  12;  4:  13;  and  "spikenard,"  in 
Smith's  "Diet,  of  the  Bible,"  Vol.  IV.,  p. 
3103,  Am.  ed. 

4.  Then  saith,  etc.,  or,  But  Judas  Iscariot, 
one  of  his  disci2)les,  which  should  (was  about 
to)  betray  him,  saith  (Rev.  Ver. )  Here  again 
the  narrative  of  John  designates,  by  name, 
the  person  who  takes  the  lead  in  censuring 
Mary's  act,  though  others  appear  to  have 
joined  in  the  censure.  For  Matthew  says  that 
"  when  his  disciples  saw  it,  they  had  indigna- 
tion, saying"  ;  and  Mark  relates  that  "there 
were  some  that  had  indignation  in  themselves, 


and  said."  Possibly  Matthew,  who  once  sat 
at  the  receipt  of  custom,  and  understood  well 
the  value  of  money,  was  one  of  the  twelve 
who  at  first  sympathized  with  the  criticism  of 
Judas.  If  so,  it  was  specially  natural  for  him 
to  record  the  fact  that  Christ's  disciples  (with- 
out meaning  to  say,  every  one  of  them)  "had 
indignation."  But  John  is  wont  to  take  his 
readers  at  once  to  the  fountain-head  of  good 
or  evil.  Here,  therefore,  he  names  the  very 
man  with  whoita  the  censure  of  Mary's  act 
began,  and  at  whose  suggestion  the  thought 
of  censure  came  into  other  minds.  The  best 
textual  authorities  omit  the  words,  Simon's 
son. 

5.  Why  was  not  this  ointment  sold  for 
three  hundred  pence  (lit.,  denarii),  and 
given  to  the  poor?  The  translation,  three 
hundred  pence,  gives  an  English  reader  no 
proper  idea  of  the  value  here  assigned  to  the 
ointment.  For  a  denarius  was  worth  from  fif- 
teen to  seventeen  cents  of  American  money  ; 
and  three  hundred  denarii  from  forty-five  to 
fifty  dollars — a  sum  which  is  proof,  on  the  one 
hand,  of  the  comfortable  circumstances  of  the 
family;  and,  on  the  other,  of  the  great  love 
and  devotion  of  Mary  to  Christ. 

6.  This  he  said,  etc.  (Better,  btit  this  he 
said),  not  that  (rather,  not  because)  he  cared 
for  the  poor; — which  would  have  been  a 
Christian  motive — but  because  he  was  a 
thief— the  first  and  only  statement  of  this  fact  in 
the  Gospels — and  had  the  bag,  and  bare 
what  was  put  therein.  Being  the  treasurer, 
or  purse-bearer,  of  the  disciples,  he  was  in  the 
habit  of  secretly  appropriating  a  part  of  the 
common  treasure  to  his  private  use.  And 
now  he  thought,  "If  only  the  value  of  this 
ointment  were  in  the  common  purse,  a  good 
percentage  of  it  would  find  its  way  into  my 
own  pocket,  and  none  of  my  companions 
would  be  the  wiser  for  it."  From  whom  did 
the  Evangelist  learn  that  Judas  was  a  thief? 
Perhaps,  from  Jesus  himself,  after  the  work 
of  Judas  was  accomplished.  It  is  natural  to 
suppose  that  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with 


248 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XII. 


7  Then  said  Jesus,  Let  her  alone:  against  the  day  of 
my  burying  hath  she  kept  this. 

8  For  "the  poor  always  ye  have  with  you;  but  me  ye 
have  not  always. 


7  was  put  therein.    Jesus  therefore  said,  i  Suffer  her 

8  to  keep  it  against  the  day  of  my  burying.  For  the 
poor  ye  have  always  with  you ;  but  me  ye  have  not 
always. 


o  Mat..  26  :  11 ;  Mark  H  :  7. 1  Or,  Let  her  alone  :  it  was  that  she  might  ke  p  it. 


the  disciples,  after  his  resurrection,  may,  at 
some  time,  have  turned  upon  Judas,  and  that 
he  may  have  revealed  to  them  a  little  of  the 
unsuspected  history  of  the  traitor.  But  why 
did  Jesus  permit  a  thief  to  be  the  treasurer 
of  his  disciples?  Did  he  not  thereby  suffer 
them  to  be  wronged,  and  Judas  to  be  tempted 
beyond  what  he  was  able  to  bear?  Perhaps 
Jesus  left  the  secular  affairs  of  the  company 
to  his  disciples,  judging  it  best  that  they 
should  be  exposed  to  the  ordinary  risks  of 
financial  management,  from  the  first.  And 
as  to  the  temptation  of  Judas,  it  was  only 
what  must  happen  to  men  of  like  spirit,  in  all 
times.  Their  moral  strength  is  tested  at  its 
weakest  point;  if  it  fails  there,  it  fails  every- 
where. Moral  character  is  a  unit,  and  it  is  no 
stronger  than  its  weakest  part.  The  word 
translated  bare,  is  supposed  by  De  Wette, 
Meyer,  Godet,  and  some  others,  to  signify,  in 
this  place,  "bore  away."  Doubtful.  (Com- 
pare 20:  15.) 

7.  Let  her  alone,  etc.  Eead:  Suffer  her 
to  keep  it  for  the  day  of  my  burial.  This 
was  said  before  the  act  of  anointing  was 
finished,  and  it  means:  "Let  her  keep  the 
ointment,  according  to  her  purpose,  instead 
of  selling  it ;  let  her  retain  and  use  it,  without 
annoyance,  for  the  day  of  my  burial." 
"Thus  Jesus  gives  this  occurrence  atypical 
importance  for  his  burial." — Lnthardt.  It 
was  in  harmony  with  a  divine  purpose,  not 
understood,  perhaps,  by  Mary,  but  clearly 
perceived  by  Christ,  that  this  anointing  was 
now  taking  place.  His  body  was  not  anointed, 
according  to  custom  at  the  time  of  his  death, 
but  this  part  of  the  funeral  honors  was  antici- 
pated by  the  act  of  Mary.  Having  made 
this  remark,  checking  the  criticism  of  Judas 
and  of  his  fellow  disciples,  who  appear  to 
have  seconded  it  in  some  degree,  Jesus  maj' 
have  paused  a  few  moments  before  adding 
the  words  preserved  hy  the  other  Evangelists. 
So  that  his  words  may  have  succeeded  each 
other  in  the  following  order:  "  Why  trouble 
ye  the  woman  ?  Suffer  her  to  keep  it  for  the 
day  of  my  burial."  (Pause.)  "For  she  hath 
wrought  a  good  work  upon  me.      For  the 


poor  ye  have  always  with  you,  but  me  ye 
have  not  alwaj's.  For  in  that  she  poured  this 
ointment  on  my  body,  she  did  it  for  my 
burial.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  wheresover 
this  gospel  shall  be  preached  in  the  whole 
world,  what  this  woman  did  will  also  be  told 
for  a  memorial  of  her."   (Matt.  26:  lo-i.i.) 

We  have  followed  in  this  passage  a  reading 
which  is  much  better  supported  than  that  of 
the  common  text,  but  which  makes  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  passage  more  difficult. 

8.  For  the  poor  ye  have  always  with 
you ;  but  me  ye  have  not  always.  The 
Saviour  assents  to  the  propriety  of  giving  to 
the  poor;  but  he  assumes  that  this  is  not  the 
whole  duty  of  his  disciples;  they  are  also  to 
express  their  reverence  and  love  to  their 
Lord.  Worship  is  no  less  a  duty  than  alms- 
giving. Direct,  and  even  public,  expressions 
of  loyalty  and  devotion  to  God  are  a  part  of 
Christian  duty.  But  the  opportunity  for  such 
an  expression  of  love  as  Mary  was  now 
making,  woulU  soon  be  past;  while  the  op- 
portunitj'  to  bestow  alms  on  the  poor  would 
be  alwaj's  present.  "Mary,  as  if  .she  knew  I 
was  soon  to  die,  has  chosen  the  strongest  way 
she  could  of  showing  how  much  she  loved 
me.  She  has  done  for  me,  as  her  Teacher, 
Messiah,  and  Friend,  while  I  live,  what  she 
would  soon  have  had  to  do  to  my  dead  body — 
she  has  embalmed  me  for  the  grave." — 
Geikie.  According  to  Matthew,  Jesus  added 
the  words:  "For  in  that  she  poured  this 
ointment  on  my  body,  she  did  it  for  my 
burial.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  wheresoever 
this  gospel  shall  be  preached  in  the  whole 
world,  there  shall  also  this  that  this  woman 
hath  done,  be  told  for  a  memorial  of  her." 
(26 :  12, 13.)  And  according  to  Mark,  another  ex- 
pression still:  "She  hath  done  what  she 
could."  (Mark u: 8.)  The  three  narratives 
agree  as  to  the  principal  circumstances.  Yet 
only  the  Synoptical  Gospels  record  the  inter- 
esting prophecj^  that  the  act  of  Marj-  should 
be  told  wherever  the  gospel  should  be 
preached;  while  John's  narrative  is  the  only 
one  that  gives  the  name  of  the  woman  who 
performed  this  act  of  love,  or  mentions  the 


Ch.  XII.] 


JOHN. 


249 


9  Much  people  of  the  Jews  therefore  knew  that  he 
was  tliire :  and  they  came  not  for  Jesus'  sake  only,  but 
that  they  might  see  Lazarus  also,"  whom  he  had  raised 
from  tlie  dead. 

10  *  But  the  chief  priests  consulted  that  they  might 
put  Lazarus  also  to  death  ; 

11  "liecause  that  by  reason  of  him  many  of  the  Jews 
went  away,  and  believed  on  Jesus. 

12  •'On  the  ne.^t  day  much  people  that  were  come 
to  the  feast,  when  they  heard  that  Jesus  was  coming  to 
Jerusalem, 


9  The  common  people  thercfure  of  the  Jews  learned 
that  he  was  there :  aud  tliey  came,  not  for  Jesu.s'  sake 
only,  but  that  they   might  see  Lazarus  also,  whom 

10  he  had  raised  from  the  dead.  But  the  chief  priests 
took  counsel    that  they  might  put  Lazarus  also  to 

11  death ;  because  that  by  reason  of  hiiu  many  of  the 
Jews  went  away,  and  believed  on  Jesus. 

12  On  the  morrow  » a  great  multitude  that  had  come 
to  the  feast,  when  they  heard  that  Jesus  was  com- 


a  cb.  11 :  43,  44. 


..6  Luke  16:  31 cch.  11:  45;  ver.  18 d  Matt.  21 :  8;  Mark  11:  8;  Luke  19:  35,  36.  etc- 

read,  tlie  common  people. 


~l  Some  aucient  authorities 


presence  of  Lazarus  at  the  feast,  or  traces  the 
criticism  of  the  disciples  to  the  selfish  heart 
of  Judas. 
9-11.  Jewish  Sentiment  at  This  Time. 

9.  Much  people — the  common  people — 
of  the  Jews  therefore  knew  that  he  was 
there.  This  verse  is  probably  to  be  con- 
nected with  verse  first.  The  coming  of  Jesus 
and  his  disciples  to  Bethany  on  Friday  even- 
ing, became  generally  known  before  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbath  was  over.  Indeed,  he  was  now 
an  object  of  such  deep  and  varied  interest 
that  his  approach  to  Jerusalem  was  sure  to  be 
noised  abroad.  And  they  came  not  for 
Jesus'  sake  only,  bnt  that  they  might 
see  Lazarus  also,  whom  he  had  raised 
from  the  dead.  From  the  circumstance 
that  the  much  (or,  comvion)  people  is  de- 
scribed as  of— i.  e.,  fro7n — the  Jews,  it  may 
be  inferred  that  they  were,  for  the  most  part, 
hostile  to  Jesus.  Yet  they  were  not,  perhaps, 
of  the  most  unyielding  temper,  but  were  will- 
ing at  least  to  see  if  Lazarus  were  actually 
alive,  and  to  examine  on  the  spot  the  evi- 
dence of  his  resurrection.  Some  of  them 
were  doubtless  convinced  by  what  they  saw 
and  heard,  and  were  ready,  in  the  excitement 
of  their  new  conviction,  to  join  those  who,  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  spread  their  garments 
in  the  way,  and  shouted,  "Hosanna!"  But 
there  was  a  party  very  differently  employed. 

10,  But  the  chief  priests  consulted  (or, 
took  counsel)  that  they  might  put  Lazarus 
also  to  death.  In  this  consultation,  we  are 
not  to  suppose  the  whole  Sanhedrin  engaged; 
but  the  hierarchical  members,  the  heads  of 
the  twenty-four  classes  into  which  the  oflSciat- 
ing  priests  were  divided,  together  with  the 
high  priest,  and  his  kindred.  This  influential 
part  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  ready  to  resort  to 
any  measure,  however  desperate,  in  order  to 
bring  about  the  destruction  of  Jesus.  But  the 
presence  and  testimony   of  Lazarus,   as  the 


Evangelist  proceeds  to  indicate,  were  doing 
something  every  day  to  defeat  their  cherished 
purpose. 

11.  Because  that  by  reason  of  him 
many  of  the  Jews  went  (or,  viere  going) 
a\yay,  and  believed  {were  believing)  on 
Jesus.  The  expression,  were  going  away, 
shows  that  they  were,  one  by  one,  separating 
themselves  from  the  extreme  adversaries  of 
Jesus;  the  leading  faction,  which  would  hes- 
itate at  nothing,  and  which  was,  in  fact,  the 
nucleus  and  centre  of  the  Sanhedrin.  And 
those  who  were  thus  separating  themselves 
from  this  centre  of  hostility  to  Christ,  and 
making  inquiry  as  to  the  truth,  were  also  one 
by  one  coming  to  believe  in  Jesus,  on  account 
of  Lazarus.  With  Lazarus  before  them,  they 
could  not  deny  his  resurrection,  at  the  word 
of  Christ;  and,  convinced  of  his  resurrection, 
at  the  word  of  Jesus,  they  could  not  withhold 
their  confidence  from  Jesus. 

13-19.  Christs  Triumphal  Entrance 
into  Jerusalem. 

13.  On  the  next  day  much  people  (lit., 
(a  great  multitude)  that  were  come  to  the 
feast.  It  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  absolute 
certainty  in  respect  to  the  day  of  the  week 
meant  by  the  next  day ;  but  there  is  a  strong 
probability  that  it  was  the  first,  or  Sunday — 
hence  called  Palm  Sunday.  (See  Note  on 
ver.  1.)  The  multitude  here  referred  to  was 
composed,  for  the  most  part,  of  people  who 
had  come  up  to  the  holy  city  from  various 
parts  of  the  land,  to  keep  the  passover.  They 
were,  therefore,  less  prejudiced  than  the  in- 
habitants of  Jerusalem,  and  especially  "the 
Jews."  When  they  heard  (lit.,  having 
heard)  that  Jesus  was  coming  to  (or,  hito) 
Jerusalem.  By  what  means  they  heard,  the 
Evangelist  does  not  state;  perhaps,  by  the  re- 
port of  some  of  "the  Jews,"  who  had  visited 
him  at  Bethany,  during  the  Sabbath,  had 
been  convinced  of  his  divine  mission  (ver.  u), 


250 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XII. 


13  Took  branches  of  palm  trees,  and  went  forth  to 
meet  him,  and  cried,  "Hosanna:  Blessed  is  the  King 
of  Israel  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

14  ''And  Jesus,  when  he  had  found  a  young  ass,  sat 
thereon  ;  as  it  is  written, 

15  "Fear  not,  daughter  of  Sion:  behold,  thy  King 
cometh,  sitting  on  an  ass's  colt. 


13  ing  to  Jerusalem,  took  the  branches  of  the  palm 
trees,  and  went  forth  to  meet  him,  and  cried  out, 
Hosanna:  Blessed  is  he  that  cumeth  in  the  name  of 

14  the  Lord,  even  the  King  of  Israel.  And  Jesus, 
having  found  a  young  ass,  sat  thereon  :  as  it  is  writ- 

15  ten.  Fear  not,  daughter  of  Zion:    behold,  thy  King 


aPs.  118:  25,  26 b  Malt.  21:  7 c  Zech.  9:  9. 


and  had  learned  of  his  purpose  to  enter  the 
city  on  the  morrow ;  or,  by  the  report  of  per- 
sons who  had  visited  Bethany  on  the  morning 
of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  liad  returned 
to  Jerusalem,  with  a  knowledge  of  Christ's 
purpose.  At  such  a  time,  the  intercourse  be- 
tween the  two  places  would  be  constant;  and 
now,  more  than  ever  before,  the  movements 
of  Jesus  were  a  matter  of  universal  interest. 
13.  Took  branches  of  palm  trees  (that 
is,  of  the  palm  trees,  that  were  standing  near. ) 
These  branches  were  symbols  of  victory  and 
peace.  Dr.  Robinson  describes  them  as  the 
"pendulous  twigs  and  boughs  of  the  palm 
tree."  The  word  Bethany  signifies  "house  of 
dates";  and  it  is,  therefore,  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  date-palms  were  abundant  on 
the  sides  of  the  Mount  of  Olives.  The  tree 
"was  regarded  by  the  ancients  as  peculiarly 
characteristic  of  Palestine  and  the  neighbor- 
ing regions."  (Smith's  "Diet,  of  the  Bible." 
Art.  Palm-tree.)  And  Avent  forth  to  meet 
him,  and  cried,  Hosanna:  Blessed  is 
the  Kin£^  of  Israel  that  cometh  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord.  The  Revised  Version 
makes  the  King  of  Israel  the  last  clause, 
the  King  of  Israel,  being  in  apposition 
with  he  that  cometh,  and  added  for  the  pur- 
pose of  setting  forth  the  office  of  this  person- 
age. The  people  are  represented  by  Matthew 
(21:9)  as  crying:  "Hosanna  to  the  Son  of 
David  ;  blessed  be  he  that  cometh  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord.  Hosanna  in  the  highest,"  where 
the  expression,  "the  Son  of  David,"  is  equiva- 
lent to  "the  King  of  Israel,"  in  this  passage; 
but,  as  the  verb  translated  cried  (i.  e.,  were  cry- 
ing',) denotes  con  tinned  action,  both  expressions 
may  have  been  used.  The  word  "  Hosanna," 
means,  "save,  I  entreat";  or,  "bring  salva- 
tion, I  entreat"  ;  and  the  language  of  the  peo- 
ple was  bfirrowed,  with  slight  additions,  from 
Ps.  118:  25,  26,  which  is  thus  translated  by 
Perowne:  ^^  We  beseech  thee,  O  Jehovah,  save 
now ;  we  beseech  thee,  O  Jehovah,  send  noiv 
prosperity.  Blessed  be  he  that  cometh  in  the 
name  of  Jehovah.^'     And  he  remarks  as  fol- 


lows, on  the  word  "hosanna";  '\Save  now; 
or,  rather,  'Save,  I  pray.'  The  particle  of 
entreaty  is  repeated  in  each  member  of  this 
(2dth)  verse,  so  that,  altogether,  it  occurs  four 
times,  as  if  to  mark  the  earnestness  of  the  pe- 
tition. The  English  word  'now,'  is  not,  there- 
fore, a  particle  of  time,  but  a  particle  of  en- 
treaty, as  in  Eccl.  12:  1 :  '  Remember  now  thy 
Creator' — i.  e.,  'Remember,  I  beseech  thee, 
thy  Creator.'  " 

14.  And  Jesus,  Avhen  he  had  found  a 
young  ass.  John  omits  the  details  in  respect 
to  the  procuring  of  the  young  ass,  which  had 
been  recorded  by  the  other  Evangelists;  but 
we  are  not  to  infer  from  this  that  he  was  ig- 
norant of  them,  or  that  he  deemed  them  of 
no  importance.  (Comp.  20:  30,  31;  21:  '25.) 
He  sat  thereon  ;  as  it  is  written  : 

15.  Fear  not,  daughter  of  Sion  :  behold, 
thy  king  cometh,  sitting  on  an  ass's  colt. 
This  is  a  free  quotation  of  Zechariah  9:  9,  a 
considerable  part  of  the  original  text  being 
omitted,  but  enough  being  given  to  prove  that 
the  prophecj'  was  fulfilled.  The  words  of 
Zechariah  may  be  thus  tran.slated:  "Rejoice 
greatl3',  daughter  of  Zion !  shout,  daughter 
of  Jerusalem  !  Behold,  thy  king  cometh  unto 
thee;  just  and  having  salvation  is  he;  meek, 
and  riding  upon  an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt,  the 
foal  of  an  ass."  The  freedom  with  which  the 
inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament  treat 
the  text  of  the  Old  Testament — sometimes 
quoting  it  with  verbal  accuracy,  sometimes 
condensing  two  clauses  into  one,  sometimes 
changing  the  tense  of  a  verb  to  bring  out  more 
clearly  its  prophetic  pertinencj',  and  some- 
times giving  an  implied  thought  for  the  one 
expressed — is  by  no  means  inconsistent  with 
the  highest  reverence  for  the  divine  authority 
of  that  volume.  This  they  uniformly  show 
by  the  manner  in  which  they  refer  to  the  an- 
cient Scriptures.  And  so  far  as  we  can  judge, 
they  never  attribute  to  an  Old  Testament 
v;riter  any  thought  foreign  to  his  language, 
or,  indeed,  any  thought  that  is  not  fairl\'  im- 
plied in  his  language.     In  this  passage,  a  part 


Ch.  XII.] 


JOHN. 


251 


16  These  thiiiRs  <"  understood  not  his  disciples  at  the 
first:  'but  when  Jesus  was  glorified,  "then  remem- 
bered they  tliat  these  things  were  written  of  him,  and 
that  they  had  done  these  things  unto  him. 

17  The  people  therefore  that  was  with  him  when  he 
called  Lazarus  out  of  his  grave,  and  raised  him  from 
the  dead,  bare  record. 

18  ■'For  this  cause  the  people  also  met  him,  for  that 
they  heard  that  he  had  done  this  miracle. 

19  The  Pharisees  therefore  said  among  themselves, 
•Perceive  ye  how  ye  prevail  nothing?  behold,  the 
world  is  gone  after  him. 


16  cometh,  sitting  on  an  ass's  colt.  These  things  un- 
derstood not  his  disciides  at  the  first:  but  when 
.lesus  was  glorified,  then  remembered  they  that  these 
things  were  written  of  him,  and  that  they  had  done 

17  these  things  unto  him.  The  multitude  therefore 
that  was  with  him  when  he  called  Lazarus  out  of 
the  tomb,  and  raised  him   from  the  dead,  bare  wit- 

18  ness.  For  this  cause  also  the  multitude  went  and 
met  him,  for  that  they  heard  that  he  had  done  this 

19  sign.  The  Phari.sees  therefore  said  among  them- 
selves, 1  Behold,  how  ye  prevail  nothing:  lo,  the 
world  has  gone  alter  him. 


a  Luke  18:  31 6  cli.  7:  30 c  cb.  11:  26 d  ver.  11 ech.  11:  47,  48. 1  Or,  Ye  behold. 


of  the  original  word  is  omitted,  and  the  ex- 
pression, "Fear  not,"  is  substituted  for  "Re- 
joice." But  joy  banishes  fear,  and  an  exhor- 
tation to  rejoice  is  virtually  an  exhortation  to 
banish  fear;  as  an  exhortation  to  banish  fear 
is,  in  many  circumstances,  an  exhortation  to 
rejoice. 

16.  These  things  understood  not  his 
disciples  at  the  first,  etc.  The  homage  paid 
to  Jesus  at  this  time  was  so  enthusiastic  and 
spontaneous,  and  the  interest  of  the  disciples 
in  the  events  of  the  hour  was  so  absorbing, 
that  they  did  not  observe  how  exactly  the  an- 
cient prophecy  was  being  fulfilled.  This  was 
perfectly  natural ;  and  it  was  equally  natural 
that,  in  reflecting  upon  these  events  after  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  they  should  have  re- 
called the  words- of  prophecy  that  were  ful- 
filled bj^  them.  So,  too,  we  can  readily  un- 
derstand how  one  of  the  twelve,  and  especially 
one  so  meditative,  introspective,  and  spiritual 
as  John,  should  have  put  on  record  these  facts 
about  the  disciples;  but  we  are  unable  to  see 
liow  a  falsarius  of  the  second  century  would 
have  been  likely  to  attribute  to  the  disciples 
this  lack  of  understanding.  It  is  a  stroke  too 
delicate  for  a  deceiver.  Compare  the  similar 
statements  in  2 :  22 ;  7  :  39. 

17.  The  people  (multitude)  therefore 
that  was  with  him  when  he  called  Laza- 
rus out  of  his  grave,  and  raised  him  from 
the  dead,  bare  record  (or,  witness).  This 
language  is  retrospective,  and  applies  to  the 
whole  period  since  the  resurrection  of  Laza- 
rus. The  verb  translated  bare  witness  rep- 
resents an  act  as  being  in  progress,  and  might 
be  rendered  was  bearing  witness — i.  e.,  re- 
peatedly, from  time  to  time,  so  that  their  tes- 
timonj'^  was  not  silenced  by  the  authority  of 
the  priesthood,  but  continued  to  make  itself 
heard  until  the  public  entrance  of  Jesus  into 
Jerusalem.  According  to  another  reading 
(which   gives  on,  instead   of  ore),  this  verse  i 


should  be  translated  :  "The  multitude  there- 
fore that  was  with  him  bare  witness  that  he 
called  Lazarus  out  of  the  tomb,  and  raised 
him  from  the  dead" — that  is,  bore  witness  to 
what  they  had  seen  and  heard  at  that  time. 
As  to  sense,  the  two  retidings  do  not  differ. 
But  the  weight  of  manuscript  authority  favors 
when,  rather  than  that. 

18.  For  this  cause  the  people  (or,  7nui- 
titude)  also  met  him,  for  that  they  heard 
that  he  had  done  this  miracle  (or,  sign). 
The  report  wiiicii  hstd  gone  abroad  as  the  tes- 
timonj'of  alarge  number  of  witnesses,  namely, 
that  Jesus  had  raised  Lazarus  from  the  dead, 
led  a  multitude  of  the  people  who  had  come 
up  to  the  Passover  to  go  out  towards  Bethany, 
to  meet  the  Lord.     (See  on  ver.  12.) 

19.  The  Pharisees  therefore  said 
among  themselves— that  is,  when  the  mul- 
titude had  fairly  left  the  citj',  on  their  way  to 
meet  Jesus,  and  the  Pharisees,  who  headed 
the  opposition  to  him,  were  left  by  them- 
selves, to  meditate  on  the  course  which  events 
seemed  to  be  taking.  Perceive  ye  how  ye 
prevail  nothing?  Words  spoken,  without 
doubt,  in  a  querelous  and  bitter  tone;  every 
one  being  ready  to  charge  the  blame  of  their 
ill  success  in  the  plot  against  Jesus  upon 
others.  "Thus  far,"  they  say,  "your  efforts 
amount  to  nothing;  they  are  bootless,  un- 
profitable, vain."  The  structure  of  this 
clause  in  the  Greek  permits  us  to  translate  it 
as  a  question:  "Do  ye  see  ye  that  j^e  pre- 
vail nothing?"  but  does  not  require  this. 
"Whether  it  was  a  question,  or  not.  depended 
on  the  inflection  of  the  voice  with  which  the 
clause  was  uttered.  But  the  meaning  of 
these  words,  if  they  were  a  question,  would 
be  the  same  as  that  given  above.  Behold, 
the  world  is  gone  after  him.  As  if  the 
act  were  fully  accomplished  in  the  past,  and 
they  were  looking  back  upon  it  as  finished 
already.      For  they   had  observed  that   the 


252 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIL 


20  And  there  »were  certain  Greeks  among  theui 
'  that  came  up  to  worship  at  the  feast: 

21  The  same  came  therefore  to  Philip,  '  which  was  of 
Bethsaida  of  Galilee,  and  desired  him,  saying,  Sir,  we 
would  see  Jesus. 

■12  Philp  Cometh  and  telleth  Andrew:  and  again  An- 
drew and  Philip  tell  Jesus. 


20  Now  there  were  certain  Greeks  among  those  who 

21  weul  up  to  worship  at  the  feast:  these  therefore 
came  to  Philip,  who  was  of  Bethsaida  of  Galilee, 
and  asked   him,   saying.   Sir,  we   would  see  Jesus. 

22  Philp  Cometh  and  telleth   Andrew ;  Andrew  com- 


;  Acts  17:  4 6  1  KiugsS:  41,42;  Acts  8:  27 c  cU.  1 :  44. 


multitude  had  gone  to  meet  Jesus,  with  a 
friendly  feeling  towards  him,  and  in  face  of 
the  known  hostility  of  the  Pharisees.  This 
act  seemed,  therefore,  to  be  an  abandonment 
of  the  Pnarisaic  party  for  the  purpose  of  at- 
taching themselves  to  Christ.  And  by  an 
exaggeration  natural  to  their  bitter  and  dis- 
appointed spirit,  they  speak  of  the  multitude 
as  the  world  !  As  if  almost  none  were  left. 
Would  that  it  had  been  literally  so  ! 

20-33.  Certain   Greeks   Ask    to    See 
Jesus. 

30.  And  (or,  now)  there  were  certain 
Greeks  among  them  that  came  to  wor- 
ship at  the  feast.  The  word  Greeks  signi- 
fies persons  of  the  Greek  race  or  nation,  not 
Hellenists,  or  Jews  who  made  use  of  the 
Greek  language.  The  present  participle, 
which  might  be  translated  coming  up,  de- 
scribes the  class  of  persons  referred  to  as 
those  who  were  in  the  habit  of  coming  up  to 
worship  at  the  feast.  They  were  proselytes  to 
Judaism,  believers  in  the  true  God,  like  Cor- 
nelius, and  they  now  manifested  a  greater 
interest  in  Jesus  than  did  a  majority  of  the 
chosen  people,  who  had  been  long  desiring 
the  advent  of  their  Messiah.  The  Evangelist 
does  not  mention  the  place  where  these 
Greeks  were  when  they  expressed  their  wish 
to  see  Jesus,  but  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that 
they  were  in  the  Court  of  the  Gentiles.  The 
same  silence  is  observed  as  to  the  time  when 
this  occurred:  but  there  seems  to  be  good 
reason,  in  the  language  of  verse  36,  to  suppose 
that  it  was  as  late  in  the  week  as  about  the 
close  of  Tuesday.  This  is  the  time  which 
best  agrees  with  the  series  of  events  and  dis- 
courses narrated  by  the  other  Evangelists, 
but  which  the  purpose  of  John  did  not  re- 
quire him  to  repeat. 

21.  The  same  came  therefore  to  Philip, 
which  was  of  Bethsaida  of  Galilee,  etc. 
Their  desire,  modestly  expressed,  was  to  be 
introduced  to  Jesus;  doubtless  for  the  purpose 
of   forming  a  personal   judgment  as  to  his 


character  and  claims.  The  assistance  of  one 
of  his  disciples  would  scarcely  have  been 
needed,  if  their  wish  had  been  simply  to  look 
upon  the  face  and  note  the  bearing  of  the 
Teacher  about  whom  so  much  was  said. 
Why  they  came  to  Philip  cannot  be  known, 
and  why  John  takes  occasion  to  say  tliat  he 
was  from  Bethsaida  of  Galilee  is  equally  a 
matter  of  conjecture.  Such  particularity  is, 
however,  characteristic  of  this  Evangelist, 
and  it  reminds  us  continually  of  his  inde- 
pendent and  minute  knowledge  of  the  dis- 
ciples as  well  as  their  Master.  On  the  address 
Sir,  or.  Lord  (icupte),  Meyer  remarks:  "Not 
without  the  tender  of  honor,  which  they 
naturally  paid,  even  to  the  disciples  of  a 
Master  so  admired,  who  truly  appeared  to  be 
the  very  Messiah." 

22.  Philip  Cometh  and  telleth  Andrew. 
Whether  there  was  any  special  reason  for 
hesitation  about  complying  with  their  request 
that  led  Philip  to  tell  Andrew,  is  uncertain. 
Perhaps  the  extreme  sensitiveness  of  the  Jews 
to  intercourse  with  Gentiles,  might  render  it 
specially'  dangerous  for  Jesus  to  receive  the 
Greeks  at  this  time,  when  the  Pharisees  were 
so  eager  to  find  occasions  to  accuse  him,  and  to 
kindle  the  fanaticism  of  their  followers  against 
him.  But  it  is  also  possible  that  Philip  would 
have  been  diflBdent  about  introducing  any 
strangers  to  his  Master,  without  consulting 
some  one  of  his  associates,  especially  when 
that  Master  was  surrounded  by  people  in  the 
court  of  the  temple.  And  again  Andrew 
and  Philip  tell  Jesus.  Or,  as  in  Rev.  Ver. : 
Andrew  cometh,  and  Philip,  and  they  tell  Je- 
sus. Probably  taking  the  Greeks  with  them 
until  they  were  near  the  place  where  Jesus 
was  standing,  and  then  approaching  him 
alone,  and  making  known  to  him  the  request 
of  the  Greeks.  In  that  case,  whether  the 
Gentile  strangers  were  introduced  to  Christ  or 
not,  they  were  near  enough  to  hear  the  words 
which  their  request  led  him  to  utter,  and  which 
were,  doubtless,  a  suflScient  answer  to  the 
thoughts  of  their  hearts. 


Ch.  XII.] 


JOHN. 


253 


23  And  Jesus  answered  them,  saying,  "The  hour  is 
come,  that  the  Son  of  man  should  be  glorified. 

24  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  '  E-iceepl  a  corn  of 
wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth  alone: 
but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit. 

25  'He  that  loveth  his  life  shall  lose  it;  and  he  that 
hateth  his  life  in  this  world  shall  keep  it  unto  life 
eternal. 


23  eth,  and  Philip,  and  they  tell  Jesus.  And  Jesus 
answereth  them,  saying.  The  hour  is  come,  that  the 

24  Son  of  man  should  be  glorified.  Verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  you,  lO.'ccept  a  grain  of  wheat  fall  into 
the  earth  and  die,  it  abideth   by  itself  alone;    but 

25  if  it  die,  it  l)eareth  much  fruit.  He  that  loveth 
his    life  loseth   it ;   and  he   that  hateth   his  life  iu 


ch.  13:32;  17  :  1 i  1  Cor.  15:  30.... c  Mutt.  10:  39;  16:  25;  Mark  8.  35;  Luke!):  24;  17:  33. 


23-28.  Glory  Through  Death. 

23.  And  Jesus  answered  (or,  answereth) 
them,  saying,  The  hour  is  come,  that  the 
Son  of  man  should  be  glorified.  The 
hour  referred  to  is  that  of  his  propitiatory 
death,  by  which  his  work  of  humiliation  and 
suffering  would  be  completed,  and  his  return 
to  the  right  hand  of  power  virtually  accom- 
plished. For  with  his  sacrificial  death  was 
bound  up  his  resurrection,  his  exaltation,  and 
his  kingship  as  the  Son  of  man,  together  with 
the  renovation  and  eternal  life  of  his  people. 
The  hour  appointed  by  God  from  eternity, 
that  in  it  the  Son  of  man  might  be  glorified, 
is  perhaps  the  exact  thought  expressed  by  the 
Saviour.  Knowing  that  he  was  the  Son  of 
man,  in  a  far  more  important  sense  than  he 
was  "the  Son  of  David,"  the  desire  of  these 
Greeks  to  see  him  appears  to  have  brought  to 
his  mind  the  "great  multitude,  which  no  man 
can  number,  out  of  every  tribe  and  tongue 
and  people  and  nation,"  that  were  to  be  "re- 
deemed by  his  blood,"  and  to  be  made  "  kings 
(or,  a  kingdom)  and  priests  unto  God"  ;  and, 
with  them,  the  final,  the  crucial,  and  the  all 
important  moment  and  act  of  his  ministrj'  on 
earth.  Of  course,  the  word  hour  i=!  used  in 
the  sense  of  time.  Critical  authorities  favor 
the  present  tense  of  the  verb  in  the  first  clause 
— ansivereth,  instead  of  answered. 

24.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Ex- 
cept a  (or,  the)  corn  (or,  grain)  of  wheat 
fall  into  the  ground  (or,  earth)  and  die, 
it  abideth  alone  :  but  if  it  die,  it  bring- 
eth forth  much  fruit.  Nature  and  spirit 
are  made  for  each  other.  The  law  of  life  for 
the  one  resembles  in  many  a  particular  the 
law  of  life  for  the  other.  And  no  religious 
teacher  has  equaled  Jesus  Christ  in  setting 
forth  spiritual  truth  by  the  aid  of  facts  taken 
from  the  realm  of  nature.  In  the  saying  be- 
fore us,  John  has  preserved  a  sample  of  the 
Lord's  power  to  prepare  the  minds  of  men  for 
a  great  law  of  the  kingdom  of  grace,  by  re- 
minding them  of  a  similar  law  in  nature.  In 
the  latter  realm,  life  springs  out  of  decay  and 


death  ;  for  death  is  not  annihilation  of  being, 
but,  normally,  a  process  by  which  the  very 
life  of  the  seed  is  renewed  and  multiplied. 
Death  is  a  process  of  glorification,  or  a  process 
by  which  new  glory  is  attained.  For  the  viUil 
principle  is  never  more  active  than  when  it  is 
casting  off  its  worn  integuments,  and  clothing 
itself  anew.  Instead  of  remaining  simply 
what  it  was,  it  clothes  itself  with  root  and 
stalk  and  ear,  multiplying  itself  thirty,  sixty, 
or  even  a  hundred  fold.  And  Jesus  sees  in 
this  law  of  the  vegetable  world  a  faint  emblem 
of  what  he  is  to  experience  as  hemsikesto  him- 
self a  spiritual  body,  or  becomes  the  principle 
of  spiritual  life  in  a  multitude  who  are  to  be 
redeemed  from  sin  and  woe.  But  this  law 
seen  in  the  vegetable  world  is  applicable,  not 
only  to  Christ  himself,  but  to  all  men,  as  re- 
lated to  him,  and  to  salvation  through  him. 

25.  He  that  loveth  his  life  shall  Iosg 
{loseth)  it;  and  he  that  hateth  his  life  in 
this  world  shall  keep  it  unto  life  eternal. 
The  word  translated  life,  in  the  expression, 
his  life,  (not  in  the  phrase  "eternal  life,")  is 
translated  by  some,  soul — a  meaning  which  it 
often  has.  But  this  rendering  is  scarcely  suit- 
able in  the  present  case,  unless  we  under.-tand 
by  "soul"  the  spirit  in  its  selfish,  earthward 
tendencies.  It  is  better  to  regard  it  as  a  more 
einphatic  term  for  the  word  self,  a  meaning 
which  it  often  has  in  the  Old  Testainent. 
Selfishness  is  ruin  to  the  highest  interests  of 
him  who  is  ruled  by  it,  while  self-denial  in 
this  world,  and  with  reference  to  this  world, 
leads  to  the  eternal  good  of  him  who  practices 
it.  He  that  loves  God  with  all  the  heart,  and 
his  neighbor  as  himself,  will  be  called  to  suffer 
much ;  but  it  will  be  but  for  a  moment,  and 
will  issue  in  "a  far  more  exceeding  and  eter- 
nal weight  of  glory."  (2Cor4:i7.)  He  that 
forgets  self,  in  his  love  to  God  and  man,  will 
be  assailed,  and  stripped,  and  wounded, 
and  left  half  dead  by  the  forces  of  moral 
evil ;  but  he  will  be  re-animated,  and 
crowned  by  the  infinite  grace  of  God,  and  the 
uplifting  power  of  a  good  conscience  and  a 


254 


JOHK 


[Ch.  XII. 


26  If  any  man  serve  me,  let  him  fol'iow  me ;  and 
«  where  I  am,  there  shall  also  mj'  servant  be :  if  any 
man  serve  me,  him  will  my  Father  honour. 

27  'Now  is  my  soul  troubled;  and  what  shall  I  say? 
Father,  save  me  iroin  this  hour :  « but  for  this  cause 
came  I  unto  this  hour. 


26  this  world  shall  keep  it  unto  life  eternal.  If  any 
man  serve  me,  let  him  follow  me ;  and  where  I 
am,  there  shall   also   my   servant  be;    if  any   man 

27  serve  me,  him  will  the  Father  honour.  Now  is  my 
soul  troubled;  and  what  shall  1  say?  Father,  save 
me  from  this  i  hour.    But  for  this  cause  came  I  unto 


ach.U-.i;  17  :  2i  ;  1  Thess.  4:  17 6  Matt.  26:  38,  39;  Luke  12  :  50  ;  ch.  13:  21 c  Luke  22  :  53;  ch.  13:37. 1  Or.  hourt 


true  heart.   (Compare  2  Tim.  2:  12;  Matt.  10: 
39.) 

26.  If  any  man  serve  me,  let  him  fol- 
low me,  etc.  Observe,  first,  that  the  word 
me  is  emphatic  in  the  first  part  of  this  verse: 
''If  any  man  serve  >we,  let  him  follow  me"; 
secondly,  that  Jesus  here  claims  service  from 
his  disciples — he  does  not  teach  them  to  serve 
the  Father  only,  but  he  expects  them  to  serve 
himself;  tidrdly,  that  true  service  to  Christ 
implies  following  him  in  the  way  of  self-denial 
and  suflfering— it  is  enough  for  the  disciple  to 
imitate  his  Lord,  and  he  cannot  do  his  Mas- 
ter's will  without  following  in  his  steps;  and, 
fourthly,  tliat  such  service  will  issue  in  his 
being  forever  with  the  Lord,  than  which  a 
greater  good  cannot  be  imagined.  To  be  with 
Christ,  and  to  reign  with  him  '.—this  is  full- 
ness of  joy  to  the  Christian  heart.  In  the  last 
part  of  the  verse,  the  emphatic  words  are 
serve,  and  will  honour.  Service  to  Christ 
will  be  recompensed  by  honor  from  his  Fa- 
ther. The  genuine  disciple  of  Christ  will  be 
an  heir  of  God,  a  joint-heir  with  Christ 
(Rom.  8:17);  having  Suffered  with  him,  he  will 
also  be  glorified  with  him.  But  now  the  Sav- 
iour returns  to  his  own  cross. 

27.  Now  is  my  soul  troubled.  The  pros- 
pect of  his  dreadful  suflTering,  from  which  he 
had  turned  his  thought  for  a  moment,  to 
speak  of  the  law  of  true  life  for  his  followers, 
now  re-asserts  its  power  over  his  soul,  and 
with  \\o\y  simplicity  and  wisdom  he  gives  ex- 
pression to  his  dialogue  with  himself,  in  the 
hearing  of  his  disciples.  Observe  that  the 
perfect  tense  of  the  verb  is  employed,  indi- 
I'ating  that  his  trouble  of  soul  had  comedown 
from  a  previous  moment  to  the  present.  And 
bear  in  mind,  also,  that  his  human  nature  was 
never  suppressed  by  the  divine.  Its  appeals 
■were  ever3'  whit  as  strong  as  they  would  have 
been  if  his  divine  nature  had  been  torpid,  or 
unconscious.  And,  finally,  learn  that  a 
knowledge  of  the  blessed  ministry  and  issue 
of  suffering  does  not  make  it  for  the  time  be- 
ing unreal.  The  good  are  far  more  troubled 
by  some  forms  of  evil  than  the  bad.     And 


what  shall  I  say?  Father,  save  me  from 
this  hour.  That  is,  from  the  suffering  of  this 
hour — from  the  terrible  death  into  whose  shad- 
ow I  am  now  entering.  The  words,  Father, 
save  me  from  this  hour,  may  be  under- 
stood as  a  question  embodying  the  petition 
which  human  nature  prompted,  but  which 
was  not  offered ;  or  as  an  actual  prayer  ad- 
dressed to  the  Father.  The  former  interpre- 
tation makes  the  passage  less  dramatic  and 
impassioned  than  the  latter.  But  we  prefer 
it  (1)  because  it  agrees  better  with  the  doubt 
expressed  by  the  previous  question,  and  (2) 
because  it  agrees  better  with  the  idea  that 
Christ  was  conscious  at  the  instant  of  the  pres- 
ence of  his  disciples.  "  Liicke,  Meyer,  and 
Hengstenberg  suppose  this  to  be  an  actual 
praj'er:  'Deliver  me  from  the  necessity  of 
dying.'  But  how,  then,  is  the  following  word 
to  be  understood?  It  would  be  an  in.stant  re- 
calling of  this  request.  So  sudden  a  revulsion 
of  feeling  is  impossible.  They  appeal  to  the 
prayer  in  Gethsemane.  But  Jesus  there  be- 
gan by  saj'ing:  If  it  be  possible ;  and  then  he 
marked  impressiveh'  the  contrast  between  the 
two  cries  by  the  word  nevertheless  (ttA^x.) 
Here  the  contradiction  would  be  absolute,  and 
would  remain  unexplained." — Godet.  "West- 
cott  supposes  that  all  objection  to  the  latter 
view,  namely,  that  this  is  a  prayer,  may  be 
removed  by  noticing  "the  exact  form  in  which 
it  is  expressed.  The  petition  is  for  deliver- 
ance out  of  (<Tw<rov  €(c.  .),  and  not  for  deliver- 
ance from  (ijTo),  the  crisis  of  trial.  So  that 
the  sense  appears  to  be,  'bring  me  safely  out 
of  the  conflict'  (Heb.s:?),  and  not  simply,  'keep 
me  from  entering  into  it.'  "  But  we  doubt 
whether  this  would  be  suggested  by  the  Greek 
expression  to  any  one  who  was  not  looking  for 
a  way  of  escape  from  an  interpretation  which 
did  not  please  him.  But  for  this  cause 
came  I  unto  this  hour.  That  is,  "unto 
this  hour  of  suffering  and  death  I  came,  just 
because  it  was  such  an  hour.  If,  then,  I  am 
saved  from  it,  I  shall  fiiil  of  accomplishing 
that  for  which  I  came  into  the  world.  Every 
step  of  my  course  has  looked  to  this  now  im- 


Ch.  XII. ] 


JOHN. 


255 


28  Father,  glorify  thy  name.  "Then  came  there  a 
voice  from  heaven,  saying,  I  have  both  glorified  it,  and 
will  glorify  U  again. 

'£i  The  people  therefore  that  stood  by,  and  heard  U, 
said  that  it  tliundered:  others  said,  An  angel  spake  to 
him. 

30  Jesus  answered  and  said,  *  This  voice  came  not  be- 
cause of  me,  but  for  your  sakes. 


28  this  hour.  Father,  glorify  thy  name.  There  came 
therefore  a  voice  out  of  heaven,  xHijinii,  I   have  both 

29  glorified  it,  and  will  glorify  it  again.  The  multitude 
therefore,   that   stood  by,   and    heard  it,  said,  that 

30  it  had  thundered;  others  said.  An  angel  hath 
spoken  to  him.  .Tesus  answered  and  said.  This 
voice  hath  not  come  for  my  sake,  but  for  your  sakes. 


oMait.  3:  17....6ch.  11:  «. 


pending  atoning  death,  and  deliverance  from 
this  must  be  fatal  to  the  highest  purpose  of 
my  incarnation  and  ministry."  This  saying 
of  Jesus  perfectly  agrees  with  another  recorded 
bj'  Matthew  (iO:  2s) ;  "  Even  as  tlie  Son  of  man 
came,  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  min- 
ister, and  to  give  his  life  (t>ji'  i^v^nv  ainov)  a  ran- 
som for  many";  and  these  expressions  from 
his  own  lips  account  for  the  central  place 
which  was  given  to  the  doctrine  of  the  cross 
by  the  apostles.  (See  1  Cor.  1 :  17,  sq. ;  Gal. 
3:  1.) 

28.  Father,  glorify  thy  name.  This  is 
the  actual  prayer.  One  might  have  antici- 
pated from  the  foregoing  a  pra3'er  having 
special  relation  to  himself,  and  perhaps  to  his 
own  glorification.  But  self  was  forgotten. 
For  the  Father's  glory,  the  Son  of  God  "be- 
came obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of 
the  cross."  (pim.  2:8.)  Though  he  linew  that 
his  death  was  the  way  to  his  own  glory,  and 
that  his  own  glory  was  one  with  his  Father's, 
it  was  regard  for  liis  Father's  glory  that  filled 
his  soul.  Love  conquered — a  love  in  which 
there  was  no  selfishness.  What  a  lesson  for 
his  followers!  If  they  desire  to  be  victorious 
in  trial,  let  them  think  of  God,  and  permit 
the  flame  of  love  to  him  to  rise  in  their 
hearts!  It  will  consume  fear,  and  generate 
power.  Then  came  there  (better,  came 
therefore)  a  voice  from  (out  of)  heaven. 
That  is,  in  response  to  the  prayer  of  Jesus. 
Hence  the  connecting  particle  {ouv)  is  best  rep- 
resented by  the  word  therefore.  Out  of  heaven 
here  means  out  of  the  slvy,  from  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  natural  symbolism  of  Scripture, 
God's  voice  comes  down  to  men.  I  have 
both  glorified  it,  and  will  glorify  it  again. 
Hence  the  voice  was  intelligible,  certainly  to 
Jesus,  probably  to  the  disciples,  and  among 
them,  to  the  writer  of  this  Gospel,  and  possi- 
bly, to  some  of  the  people.  For  the  Evan- 
gelist declares  its  meaning,  without  any  hint 
that  it  had  been  interpreted  to  him  by  his 
Master.  But  to  what  does  the  first  part  of  the 
expression   refer?      Probably   to    the   whole 


woric  of  Christ  hitherto,  which  is  now  looked 
upon  as  completed  in  the  past;  hence  the 
Greek  form  which  expresses  completed  ac- 
tion :  "I  both  glorified"  ;  though  the  English 
idiom  requires  us  to  translate  as  above:  "I 
have  both  glorified."  Christ  had  glorified 
God  by  his  ministry  among  the  Jews,  and  he 
was  now  to  glorify  him  by  his  death  for  all 
men,  and  by  the  gradual  spread  of  the  gospel 
among  all  nations. 

29.  The  people  therefore  that  stood  by 
and  heard  it,  said  that  it  (had)  thun- 
dered: others  said.  An  angel  spake  to 
him.  "  We  must  abide  by  the  interpretation 
that  a  voice  actually  issued  from  heaven,  which 
John  relates,  and  Jesus  confirms  as  an  ob- 
jective occurrence." — Meyer.  But  such  was 
the  nature  of  this  voice  that  it  was  recognized 
by  the  unsusceptible  multitude  as  a  sound 
like  that  of  thunder,  while  to  others  it  was 
like  speech,  and  was  ascribed  to  an  angel, 
though  the  words  were  not  understood.  With 
this  voice  may  be  compared  that  which  Paul 
heard  on  the  way  to  Damascus  (Acts 9: 7;  22:  g) ; 
for  it  appears  that  the  companions  of  Saul 
heard  the  voice,  but  did  not  recognize  the 
words  that  were  uttered. — Lucke,  Hackett. 

30.  Jesus  answered  and  said.  This 
voice  came  not  because  of  me,  but  for 
your  sakes  (hath  not  come  for  my  sake,  hut 
for  yours).  His  language  is  called  an  anstver, 
because  it  was  occasioned  by  the  words  of  the 
people,  and  was  intended  to  explain  to  them 
the  true  significance  of  the  miraculous  event 
which  had  arrested  their  attention.  Some  of 
the  multitude  were  susceptible  of  holy  im- 
pressions, and  might  be  led  to  full  trust  in 
him  ;  while  others  were  already  believing,  but 
with  a  faith  so  weak  that  it  would  soon  be 
shaken  and  apparently  destroyed  by  his  death 
on  the  cross.  Hence  he  sa3's  to  them  :  "  This 
voice  has  not  come  to  convince  me  that  my 
prayer  is  heard  and  answered,  for  I  have  no 
need  of  such  evidence;  but  it  has  come  to 
conquer  your  unbelief,  or  to  strengthen  your 
faith." 


256 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XII. 


31  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world:  now  shall 
"the  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out. 

32  And  I,  'if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw 
«all  men  unto  me. 

33  "i  This  he  said,  signifying  what  death  he  should  die. 


31  Now  is  1  the  judgment  of  this  world:  now  shall  the 

32  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out.      And  I,  if  I  be 
lifted  up  2  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto 

33  myself.    But  this  he  said,  signifying  by  what  man- 


a  M:itt   12  ■  29;  Luke  10 :  18 ;  ch.  14:  30;  16:  11;  Acts  26:  18;  2  Cor.  4:4;  Eph.  2:  2;  6:  12 Job.  3:  14;  8:  28 c  Rom.  5:  18;  Heb. 

2:9 d  ch.  18:  32. 1  Or,  a  judgment 2  Or,  out  of . 


31.  NoAV  is  the  judgment  of  this  world. 

The  whole  sinful  world,  heathen  as  well  as 
Jewish,  is  brought  before  the  mind  of  Christ. 
All  Israel  and  all  the  Gentiles  are  represented 
by  the  people  around  ;  and  all  are  pronounced 
guilty  by  his  death,  which  is  for  all.  For 
this  world  is  an  evil  world,  subject  to  Satan, 
"the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  children 
of  disobedience."  (Eph.  2:2.)  The  Jews,  in- 
deed, regarded  the  Gentiles  as  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  prince  of  darkness,  but  supposed 
themselves  to  be  servants  of  God  ;  the  Sav- 
iour, however,  counted  all  who  rejected  the 
truth  as  belonging  to  this  world— a  world 
which  he  was  about  to  condemn  ;  wiiile  he  fell 
by  its  malice,  and  died  for  its  redemption. 
Ni»w  shall  the  prince  of  this  world  be 
cast  out.  That  is,  out  of  his  throne  and 
kingdom,  the  hearts  of  men.  He  shall  no 
longer  be  the  ruler  of  mankind.  His  expul- 
sion from  the  seat  of  power  shall  begin  from 
the  time  of  my  death,  which  has  now  come. 

32.  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the 
earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me  {my- 
self). That  the  conditional  clause,  if  I  be 
lifted  up  from  the  earth,  refers  to  the  cru- 
cifixion of  Jesus,  is  made  certain  by  the 
explanation  of  the  Evangelist  (ver.  33)— an  ex- 
planation which  fully  agrees  with  the  pre- 
ceding context.  (See  ver.  24-27.)  But  it 
may,  at  the  same  time,  be  true  that  Jesus 
thought  of  the  cross  as  his  pathway  to  glory, 
and  associated  his  ignominious  but  atoning 
death  with  his  consequent  exaltation  at  the 
right  hand  of  power.  By  using  a  conditional 
form,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  he  does  not  intimate 
any  doubt  as  to  the  certainty  of  his  death,  but 
he  adopts  this  form  in  order  to  say,  in  the 
briefest  manner,  that  he  will  draw  all  men  to 
himself,  and  that  his  crucifixion  is  prerequisite 
to  his  doing  this.  His  triumph  and  reign  are 
certain,  but  they  are  conditioned  on  his  death. 

The  drawing  spoken  of  must  be  understood 
to  embrace  all  the  moral  and  spiritual  influ- 
ences by  which  men  are  led  to  put  their  trust 
in  Christ,  and  to  serve  him  with  a  true  heart. 
Especially  does  it  include  the  preaching  of 
Christ,  and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 


is  given  by  Christ.  It  is  an  effectual  draw- 
ing, by  means  of  which  the  servants  of  Satan 
are  led  to  become  the  servants  of  Christ ;  not 
an  attempt  to  draw  men  to  himself,  which  is 
resisted,  and  rendered  unavailing.  A  victory 
is  here  predicted,  and  not  simply  an  eflFort  to 
secure  victory.  But  the  victory  may  not  be 
gained  at  once.  Divine  processes  seem  to  men 
very  slow.  Eve  probably  thought  that  her 
first-born  son  was  the  promised  "seed"  ;  but 
thousands  of  years  passed  before  the  Messiah 
was  born  in  Bethlehem.  Then,  however, 
"when  the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come,  God 
sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made 
under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  un- 
der the  law."  (Gal.  4:  4.)  In  like  manner,  the 
casting  out  of  the  ruler  of  this  world,  and  the 
drawing  of  all  men  to  himself,  have  not  yet 
been  accomplished,  though  nearly  two  thou- 
san  1  years  have  passed  since  the  words  of  Je- 
sus were  spoken.  But  the  circle  of  the  Ke- 
deemer's  influence  is  ever  enlarging,  and  the 
time  will  surely  come  when  a  great  majority 
of  the  living  will  be  subject  to  Christ— so  large 
a  part,  indeed,  that  it  will  seem  as  if  all  were 
his  friends.  Then  the  world  will  be  full  of 
light.  Then  the  broadest  and  deepest  cur- 
rents of  human  thought  and  action  will  be 
Christian.  Then  the  heathen  will  be  given  to 
the  Son  for  his  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth  for  his  possession,  (ps-2  :  8.) 

But  in  this  language,  properly  understood, 
there  i.s  no  reference  to  the  generations  that 
had  passed  from  the  earth  before  the  death  of 
Christ,  or  to  the  heathen,  who  have,  since  that 
great  event,  lived  without  God  and  without 
hope  in  the  world,  or  to  the  multitudes  who 
have  known  and  rejected  the  gospel  of  peace. 
It  does  not,  therefore,  teach  the  doctrine  of 
universal  salvation,  but  it  foretells  a  reversal 
of  the  present  religious  condition  of  the 
world — a  period  when  the  reign  of  Christ  will 
take  the  place  of  Satan's  reign,  and  the 
spiritual  forces  of  the  world  will  be  mainly 
on  the  side  of  righteousness  and  truth.  Be- 
yond this,  the  general  scope  of  the  passage 
does  not  warrant  us  in  going. 

33.  This  he  said,  signifying  what  death 


Ch.  XII.] 


JOHN. 


257 


34  The  people  answered  him,  "We  have  heard  out  of 
the  law  that  Christ  abiduth  forever :  and  how  sayest 
thou,  The  Son  of  man  must  be  lifted  up?  who  is  this 
Son  of  man  ? 

35  Then  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Yet  a  little  while  ''is 
the  light  with  you.  ■'Walk  while  ye  have  thL'  li},'ht, 
lest  darkness  come  upon  you:  for<'he  that  wulketli  in 
darkness  knoweth  not  whither  he  goeth. 


34  ner  of  death  he  should  die.  The  multitude  there- 
fore answered  him,  We  liave  heard  out  of  the  law 
that  the  Christ  aliidetli  forever:  and  how  sayest 
thou,  The  Son  of  man  must  be  lifted  up?     who  is 

35  this  Son  of  man?  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them, 
Yet  a  little  while  is  the  light  i  among  you.  AValk 
while  ye  have  the  light,  tliai  darkness  overtake  you 
not:  and  he  that  walketh  in  the  darkness  kuoweth 


aPs.  89:  36,37;  110:  4;  Isa.  9:  7;  53:8;  Ezek.37:  25;  Dim.  2  :  44;  7:  14,  27;  Mic.  4 :  7....6cli.  1:9;  8:  12;  9:  5:  ver.  46....C  Jer.  13:  16; 
Eph.5:  8 d  ch.  11  :  10;  1  John  2:  11. 1  Or,  in. 


(or,  by  what  manner  of  death)  he  should 
die.  Tliat  is,  by  crucifixion.  No  doubt,  this 
kind  of  death  was  felt  to  be  peculiarly  igno- 
minious and  painful.  Hence  this  allusion  to 
it  beforehand  by  the  Saviour  was  recalled 
with  deep  emotion  by  "the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved."  See  also  3:  14,  where  there  is 
a  similar  prediction  of  the  manner  of  Christ's 
death. 

34.  We  have  heard  out  of  the  law 
that  (the)  Christ  abideth  forever.  Ob- 
viously the  multitude  failed  to  understand 
the  meaning  of  Christ's  language,  as  a  pre- 
diction concerning  the  manner  of  his  death, 
but  gathered  from  it,  either  that  he  was  ex- 
pecting to  be  taken  up  from  earth  to  heaven 
by  the  power  of  God,  as  v/as  Elijah — a 
thought  which  might  naturallj'  be  sug- 
gested by  his  words  here,  and  by  those 
recorded  in  verse  23 — or  that  he  was 
expecting  to  be  removed  from  earth  by 
death,  according  to  an  alleged  Rabbinic 
use  of  the  expression.  But  they  were  unable 
to  reconcile  any  removal  from  the  earth  with 
the  predictions  of  their  Scriptures  concerning 
the  Messiah's  reign ;  for  they  understood 
their  Scriptures  to  teach  that  the  Messiah 
would  have  his  throne  in  Jerusalem,  and 
would  bring  all  the  nations  into  subjection  to 
himself  as  the  King  of  Israel.  (See  Ps.  89: 
36,  37 ;  110 :  2-4 ;  Isa.  9  :  6,  7  ;  Ezek.  37 :  24,  25 ; 
and  perhaps  Dan.  7:  14.)  The  law  is  here 
used  for  the  whole  collection  of  the  Jewish 
Scriptures,  whose  authority  was  recognized 
by  the  people  as  divine.  (See  Note  on  10: 
24.)  For  there  is  nothing  in  the  Pentateuch 
which  could  have  led  the  multitude  to  speak 
as  they  did;  while  the  passages  from  the 
Psalms  and  Prophets,  quoted  above,  suf- 
f.cently  account  for  their  language.  And 
how  sayest  thou — with  some  emphasis  on 
the  pronoun  thou,  as  if  it  were  at  least  very 
strange  that  Jesus  should  array  himself,  while 
claiming  to  be  the  Messiah,  against  the  word 
of  Grod  concerning  the  Messiah.     The   Son 


of  man  must  be  lifted  up?  They  evi- 
dently borrow  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  (see  ver. 
23)  his  title,  "the  Son  of  man,"  which  they 
had  supposed  him  to  appropriate  as  the 
Messiah,  though  now  they  hesitate  whether 
he  can  have  intended  to  do  this.  For  if  "the 
Son  of  man"  is  to  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth, 
he  cannot  surely  be  the  Christ!  Who  is 
this  Son  of  man?  Meaning,  "Whatsortof 
a  personage  is  he  ?  What  is  his  mission,  his 
office,  his  relation  to  the  Messiah?"  This 
appears  to  be  the  fairest  interpretation  of 
their  question;  for  they  must  have  been  cer- 
tain that  Jesus  had  just  applied  the  title  to 
himself,  (ver.  23.)  Yet,  Meyer  may  be  right  in 
saying  that  "the  inquiry  has  in  it  something 
pert,  saucy;  as  if  they  said:  'A  fine  Son  of 
man  art  thou,  who  art  not  to  remain  forever 
in  life,  but  as  thou  dost  express  it,  art  to  be 
exalted!'"  According  to  the  former  view, 
they  are  perplexed  as  to  what  Jesus  can  mean, 
and  wish  to  be  courteous  in  their  response; 
according  to  the  latter,  they  reject  him  and 
his  word  as  unworthj'  of  respectful  notice. 
One  thing  is  evident;  that  they  have  not  the 
faintest  idea  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  or  of  a 
spiritual  kingdom. 

35.  Then  Jesus  (Jesus  therefore)  said 
unto  them.  By  therefore  we  learn  that  the 
following  words  were  occasioned  by  the 
language  of  the  people.  Yet,  Jesus  does  not 
enter  into  an  argument  with  them,  or  attempt 
an  explanation  of  what  he  had  before  said, 
for  their  satisfaction.  But,  as  he  was  wont  to 
do,  he  spoke  with  divine  authoritj',  and  gave 
to  his  discourse  a  thoroughly  practical  aim. 
Yet  a  little  while  is  the  light  with  you. 
Spoken,  of  course,  with  reference  to  himself, 
(see  1:  4,  5,  7,  8;  7:  33;  8:  12;  9:  4,  5,)  and 
calling  their  attention,  in  the  boldest  manner, 
to  himself,  as  the  highest,  if  not  the  only, 
source  of  religious  truth.  And  at  the  same 
time  he  intimates  that  he,  the  true  Light,  is 
not  to  remain  for  any  considerable  period 
with  them.     The  blessed  privilege  of  learning 


258 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIL 


36  While  ye  have  light,  believe  in  the  light,  that  ye  I  36  not  whither  he  goeth.  While  ye  have  the  light,  be- 
may  be  "tbe  children  of  light.  These  things  spake  lieve  on  the  light,  that  ye  may  become  sons  of  light. 
Jesus,  and  departed,  and 'did  hide  himself  from  them.  |  These  things  spake  Jesus,  and  he  departed  and 

a  Luke  16:  8;  Epta.  5:8;  1  Thess.  5:  5;  1  Johu  2:  9,  10,  11.... 6  cb.  8:  50;  11:  51. 


the  ways  of  God  from  the  Holy  One,  who  is 
"the  brightness  of  his  glory  and  the  express 
image  of  his  person"  (Heb. i:3).  will  soon 
be  withdrawn.  Alas,  that  so  many  of  them 
had  closed  their  eyes  to  the  light!  Walk 
Avhile  ye  have  the  light.  Not  while  ye 
have  the  light,  in  the  sense  of  "as  long  as," 
for  this  meaning  is  not  well  established;  but, 
"as "ye  have  the  light;  that  is,  in  harmony 
with  the  fact  that  ye  have  the  light;  walk  as 
ye  should  walk,  seeing  ye  have  among  you 
the  perfect  Teacher  of  divine  truth.  Ke- 
ceive  his  instruction;  let  his  words  enter 
into  your  hearts.  "Walk  according  to 
your  present  state  of  privilege  in  pos- 
sessing the  light;  which  indeed  can  only 
be  done  while  it  is  with  you." — Alford.  Lest 
darkness  come  upon  you  (or,  as  in  Re- 
vised Version,  that  darkness  overtake  you  not). 
Darkness  is  here  represented  as  an  evil  ready 
to  come  down  upon  and  take  the  persons  ad- 
dressed. (Com p.  1  Thess.  5:4.)  Light  re- 
jected is  certain  to  be  followed  by  thicker 
darkness.  To  refuse  truth  is  to  choose  error. 
To  turn  away  from  the  Holy  One  is  to  turn 
towards  the  wicked  one.  This  was  so  in  the 
time  of  Christ,  and  it  is  no  less  so  now.  For 
{and)  he  that  walketh  in  (the)  darkness 
knoweth  not  whither  he  goeth.  For  the 
meaning  of  the  last  verb,  see  3:  8;  1  John 
2:  11,  and  John  16:  5.  "Thus,"  says 
Meyer,  ...  "he  goes  away,  without  know- 
ing the  unhappy  end,  into  everlasting  destruc- 
tion." Compare  especially  the  words  of  this 
Evangelist:  "He  that  hateth  his  brother  is 
in  the  darkness,  and  walketh  in  the  darkness, 
and  knoweth  not  whither  he  goeth,  because 
the  darkness  hath  blinded  his  eyes."  (iJohn2:ii.) 
Rev.  Ver. 

36.  While  {as)  ye  have  {the)  light.  See 
explanation  under  ver.  35.  Believe  in  the 
light — i.  fi.,  "in  me,  who  am  the  light  of  the 
world."  To  believe  in  the  light  is  very  much 
the  same  as  to  walk  in  the  light,  though  in  so 
far  as  the  verb  is  concerned,  this  expression  is 
more  literal  than  that.  That  ye  may  be  the 
children  {become  sons)  of  light.  That  is 
to  say,  truly  enlightened.  For  as  sons  are 
naturally  supposed  to  inherit  the  character, 


receive  the  instruction,  and  obej-  the  will  of 
their  father,  so,  in  figurative  language,  do  men 
become  sons  of  light  when  they  experience  the 
transforming  influence  of  divine  truth,  and  are 
purified  and  controlled  by  it.  Observe  that  be- 
lieving in  the  light  is  the  same  thing  as  believ- 
ing in  Christ,  and  that  to  believe  in  Christ,  is  to 
think  his  thoughts  and  to  share  his  purposes — 
it  is  to  love  what  he  loves,  and  to  seek  what 
he  seeks — to  be  identified  as  fully  as  possible 
with  him,  in  feeling  and  motive  and  aim  and 
effort.  In  this  way  men  become  "sons  of 
light,"  pervaded  and  transfigured  by  the  light 
which  is  life,  and  b}'  the  life  which  is  light. 
For  the  rational  and  religious  nature  of  man 
lives  when  it  loves  what  God  loves,  and  is  in 
fellowship  with  him.  This  is  the  normal 
movement  of  reason,  of  conscience,  of  rever- 
ence, of  devotion,  out  of  which  come  peace, 
joy,  and  strength  unspeakable;  and  none  but 
those  who  become  sons  of  light  can  be  said  to 
live  the  full  and  true  life  of  the  soul.  The 
sons  of  darkness  are  the  sons  of  death.  To  be 
ignorant  of  God,  is  to  be  without  spiritual  life 
or  light — it  is  to  be  in  "the  outer  darkness." 
These  things  spake  Jesus,  and  departed, 
and  did  hide  himself  from  them.  These 
may  have  been,  therefore,  the  last  words  of 
instruction  and  counsel  which  Jesus  uttered  in 
the  hearing  of  the  people.  There  were  many 
who  were  thirsting  for  his  blood.  His  lofty 
claims  exasperated  them;  for  the3'  had  closed 
their  e3'es  to  the  light,  and  saw  in  Jesus  noth- 
ing but  an  impostor  and  blasphemer,  though 
he  was  the  "  Light  of  Light,"  the  Word  that 
was  with  God  and  that  was  God.  And  so  he 
did  hide  himself  from  them.  A  most 
suggestive  statement!  From  how  many  of 
"the  wise  and  prudent"  does  the  Christ  hide 
himself  still,  because  they  treat  his  message 
with  contempt!  And  is  it  not  possible  that 
he  has  hid  himself  from  large  portions  of  man- 
kind, because  he  knew  that  Vney  would  reject 
him  with  scorn?  Perhaps  the  writing  of  these 
words  brought  to  the  Evangelist's  mind  the 
language  of  Isaiah  quoted  below,  and  led  him, 
under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
certainly  honors  and  uses,  as  far  as  possible, 
the  laws  of  mental  association,  to  present  the 


Ch.  XIL] 


JOHN. 


259 


37  But  though  he  had  done  so  many  miracles  be- 
fore them,  yet  Ihey  believed  not  on  him. 

as  That  the  saying  of  Esaias  the  prophet  might  be 
fulfilled,  which  he  spake,  "Lord,  who  hath  believed  our 
report?  and  to  whom  hath  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been 
revealed  ? 


371  hid  himself  from  them.    But  though  he  had  done 
so  many  signs  before  them,  yet  they  believed  not  on 
38  him:   that  the  word  of  Isaiah  the  prophet  might  be 
fulfilled,  which  ne  spake. 
Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report? 
And   to    whom  hath  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been 
revealed  ? 


a  Isa.  53  :  I ;  Rom.  10 :  16. 1  Or,  was  hidden  from  them. 


solemn  and  startling  truth  of  the  next  para- 
graph.  (Ver.  37-43.) 

37-43.  Reflections  of  the  Evangel- 
ist. 

37.  But  though  he  had  done  so  many 
miracles  (or,  signs)  before  them,  yet  they 
believed  not  on  him.  Plowever  important 
miracles  may  be  as  evidences  that  Grod  is  with 
liim  who  works  them,  they  do  not  convince 
those  whose  eyes  are  closed.  For  what  is  lack- 
ing to  such  persons  is  not  clear  evidence,  but 
a  willingness  to  consider  and  receive  evidence. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  John  here  speaks  of  so 
many  signs,  as  if  the  number  thp.t  had  been 
wrought  by  Jesus  in  their  presence  had  been 
very  considerable — indeed,  far  greater  than 
might  be  inferred  from  the  instances  specified 
by  this  Evangelist.  For  he  mentions  only  six 
up  to  this  time,  viz. :  The  changing  of  water 
into  wine,  at  Cana  of  Galilee  (2:i-ii);  the 
healing  of  the  nobleman's  son  from  a  distance — 
Cana-Capernaum  (*:  47-5i);  the  healing  of  the 
man  at  the  Pool  of  Bethesda  (0:6-15);  the 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  east  of  Genes- 
areth  (6:  s-is);  the  giving  of  sight  to  the  man 
who  had  been  born  blind,  in  Jerusalem  (9:  i-7) ; 
and  the  raising  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead. 
(II :  1-16.)  Of  course,  then,  he  knew  of  many 
others,  but  did  not  deem  it  best  to  describe 
them  separately,  either  because  the^'  were  suf- 
ficiently known  through  the  other  Gospels,  or 
because  they  would  add  to  the  extent  but  not 
to  the  value  of  his  narrative.  (See  2:  23;  3: 
2;  4:  45;  5:  36;  6:  2;  7:  31;  20:  30.) 

The  persons  referred  to  as  those  before  whom 
Christ  had  wrought  so  many  signs,  and  who, 
in  spite  of  them,  were  still  refusing  to  trust 
in  him  as  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of 
men,  were  the  mass  of  the  people,  led  on  in 
unbelief  by  the  influential  scribes  and  Phar- 
isees. All  had  expected  the  Messiah  to  be  a 
Jewish  prince,  at  the  head  of  an  earthly 
kingdom;  and  few  of  them  could  relinquish 
that  expectation,  or  satisfy  themselves  that 
Jesus  would  fulfill  it.  But  a  general  state- 
ment of  this  kind  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 


evidence  which  all  the  Gospels  afford,  that  for 
a  time  many  of  the  people  heard  him  gladly, 
and  that  a  considerable  number  of  them  be- 
came his  true  disciples.  The  Evangelist, 
however,  is  now,  at  the  close  of  Christ's  pub- 
lic ministry,  looking  at  the  attitude  of  the 
great  body  of  the  Jews,  and  he  perceives  it  to 
be  one  of  persistent  unbelief  in  him.  He  had 
proved  to  be  "a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground," 
with  no  "form  or  comeliness,"  to  the  sinful 
nation  in  which  he  appeared.  (isa.o3:2.)  He 
had  come  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  had  re- 
ceived him  not.  (i:ii-)  Was  the  providence 
of  God  in  this?  or  was  the  plan  of  God  de- 
feated by  it  ? 

38.  That  the  saying  of  Esaias  the  pro- 
phet might  be  fulfilled.  The  plan  of  God 
was  not  defeated.  For  this  very  unbelief  was 
predicted  by  Isaiah  the  prophet,  and  must 
therefore  be  freely  indulged,  in  order  that  the 
word  of  God  revealing  a  section  of  his  plan 
might  be  fulfilled.  For  every  part  of  that 
plan,  even  to  the  permission  of  unbelief,  is 
regarded  as  holy  and  good  by  the  Evangelist: 
and  in  the  midst  of  his  wonder  and  sadness  at 
the  rejection  of  Christ  by  the  mass  of  the  peo- 
ple, he  can  but  notice  the  fiict  that  their  unbe- 
lief is  involved,  so  to  speak,  in  the  omniscience 
and  veracitj'  of  God.  For  God  had  chosen  to 
make  that  unbelief  serve  the  purpose  of  re- 
vealing his  omniscience  and  supren.acy,  by 
predicting  it  ages  before  it  was  cherished  ia 
the  hearts  of  Christ's  contemporaries;  and, 
therefore,  when  this  prediction  was  fulfilled 
by  their  unbelief,  the  Evangelist  could  well 
say  that,  from  a  divine  point  of  view,  they 
were  thus  unbelieving  in  order  that  the  word 
of  God  might  be  fulfilled.  Nothing  is  acci- 
dental; even  a  particular  course  of  sin  may 
do  something  for  the  confirmation  of  faith, 
when  it  is  so  embraced  in  the  plan  of  God 
that  it  is  made  to  fulfill  his  word.  But  this  is 
not,  of  course,  a  full  account  of  the  matter. 
The  unbelief  of  the  Jews  might  be  contem- 
plated from  many  points  of  view,  though  only 
one  is  here  taken.     For  further  remarks  oa 


260 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XII. 


39  Therefore  they  could  not  believe,  because  that  I  39  For  this  cause  they  could  not  believe,  for  that  Isaiah 
Esaias  said  again,  said  again, 

40  "He  hath  blinded  their  eyes  and  hardened  their    40      He  hath  blinded  their  eyes,  and  he  hardened  their 

1  hearts ; 

alsa.  6:  9,  10;  Matt.  13;  14. 


the  phrase,  "that  it  might  be  fulfilled,"  see 
Note  on  Matt.  1 :  22. 

The  saying  of  the  prophet  is  now  quoted 
from  Isa.  53:  1:  Who  hath  believed  our 
report?  and  to  whom  is  the  arm  of  the 
Lord  revealed?  The  word  translated  re- 
port, means,  literally,  "hearing,"  and  then, 
"that  which  is  heard."  As  used  by  the  pro- 
phet in  the  passage  cited,  it  denotes,  not  what 
he  had  heard  from  God,  but  what  the  people 
had  heard  from  him,  though  the  message 
■which  the  people  had  heard  from  him  he  had 
previously  received  from  God.  It  is  plain 
that  John  regards  this  "saying"  as  a  predic- 
tion of  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  in  the  time 
of  Christ.  But  whether  the  prophecy  is  typ- 
ical, or,  rather,  direct,  he  does  not  intimate; 
it  may  be  either,  and  yet  have  its  supreme 
fulfillment  in  the  time  of  Christ.  The  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  almost  never  distin- 
guish between  direct  and  typical  prophecies. 
The  one  thing  which  may  be  learned  from 
them  in  such  a  case  as  this  is,  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  prophet  had  respect  in  the  mind 
of  God  to  events  taking  place  at  the  Messiah's 
coming.  "The  lament  of  the  prophet  over 
the  unbelief  of  his  time  towards  his  preach- 
ing (and  that  of  his  fellows,  our),  and  to- 
wards the  might.y  working  of  God  announced 
by  him,  has,  according  to  the  Messianic  char- 
acter of  the  whole  grand  oracle,  its  reference 
and  fulfillment  in  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  to- 
wards Jesus;  so  that  in  the  sense  of  this  ful- 
fillment, the  speaking  subject  .  .  is  Jesus,  not 
the  Evangelist,  and  those  of  like  mind  with 
hxm.''— Meyer.  The  arm  of  the  Lord  is  a 
figurative  term,  denoting  his  power;  and  that 
power  had  been  signally  revealed  in  the  mir- 
acles wrought  by  Jesus,  whether  we  consider 
their  number  or  their  character.  The  our 
report  of  th.^  prophet  is  here  fulfilled  by  the 
teaching  of  Christ. 

39.  Therefore  (or, /or  this  reason)  they 
could  not  believe,  because  that  Esaias 
said  again.  That  is,  because  of  another  or- 
acle of  that  prophet.  But  interpreters  are  not 
agreed  as  to  the  reference  of  the  words  there- 
fore {for  this  reason,  SidToOro).    Do  they  refer 


to  that  which  precedes,  or  to  that  which  fol- 
lows ?  Does  the  Evangelist  intend  to  say  that 
the  inability  of  the  Jews  to  believe  is  ac- 
counted for  by  the  fact  that  the  prophecy  just 
quoted  must  be  fulfilled  in  the  history  of 
Christ  ?  Or  does  he  mean  to  say  that  this  ina- 
bility is  accounted  for  by  another  passage  in 
the  writings  of  the  same  prophet,  which  re- 
veals the  method  of  God's  providence?  The 
expression  may  certainly  be  nnticipntive  of 
the  next  clause,  because  that  Esaias  said 
again,  and  this  affords  the  best  meaning.  (See 
5:  16,  18;  8:  47;  10:  17;  1  John  3:  1,  and  ver. 
18,  above,  for  examples  of  this  use  of  "there- 
fore," or,  rather,  of  the  Greek  words  frequently 
represented  by  this  conjunction.)  With  this 
view  of  the  connection,  the  Evangelist  may 
be  understood  to  declare,  first,  that  the  unbe- 
lief of  the  Jews  was  a  fulfillment  of  prophecj', 
assuring  men  once  more  of  the  truth  and 
foreknowledge  of  God ;  and,  secondlj',  by 
another  passage,  that  their  inability  to  believe 
was  a  result  of  their  own  rejection  of  light — 
and  a  result  brought  about  by  the  innermost 
laws  of  their  moral  nature,  which  alwaj's,  in 
the  waj'  of  blessing  or  judgment,  accomplish 
the  holy  will  of  God.  This  interpretation  is 
suggested  by  the  original  passage,  (isa.  6:9,  sq.), 
where  the  prophet  is  commanded,  among 
other  things,  to  "make  the  heart  of  this 
people  fat,  and  make  their  ears  heav^',  and 
shut  their  eyes."  For  surely  the  prophet 
was  expected  to  do  this,  not  by  moving  upon 
their  souls  through  any  supernatural  influ- 
ence, but  by  declaring  to  them  the  word  of 
Jehovah,  which  it  was  foreseen  they  would 
reject,  while  by  the  process  of  rejection  and 
disobedience  they  would  become  more  and 
more  insensible  and  unspiritual.  This,  which 
the  prophet  had  been  commanded  to  effect  in 
his  day,  had  been  efl^ected  by  the  preaching  of 
Christ  in  a  more  signal  manner;  and  there- 
fore the  Evangelist,  adapting  the  language  of 
the  passage  quoted  to  the  circumstances  of  his 
own  daj',  uses  the  jiast  tense  of  the  verbs,  and 
says,  as  from  Isaiah  : 

40.  He   hath  blinded  their  eyes,  and 
hardened  their  heart;   that  they  should 


Ch.  XII.] 


JOHN. 


2G1 


heart;  thai  they  should  not  see  with  their  eyes,  nor 
understand  with  their  heart,  aud  be  converted,  and  I 
should  heal  them. 

41  "These  things  said  Esaias,  when  he  saw  his  glory, 
and  spake  of  him. 


Lest  they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and  perceive 

witb  their  heart, 
And  should  turn, 
And  I  should  heal  them. 
41  These  things  said  Isaiah,  because  he  saw  his  glory  ; 


not  see  Avith  their  eyes,  nor  understand 
with  their  heart,  and  be  converted,  and 
I  should  heal  them.  The  pronoun  he, 
the  subject  of  the  verbs  blinded  und  har- 
dened, must  be  God;  but  ucoording  to  the 
import  of  the  original  pas.sage  and  the  connec- 
tion here,  he  has  done  this  blinding  and  har- 
dening through  a  marvelously  clear  presenta- 
tion of  truth  by  his  Son  ;  so  that,  from  another 
point  of  view,  the  blinding  and  hardening  are 
wholly  due  to  the  sinful  action  of  the  people 
in  rejecting  Christ.  And  thus  it  is  always. 
Hence  Paul  could  sa}^ :  "  We  are  unto  God  a 
sweet  savour  of  Christ  in  them  that  are  saved, 
and  in  them  that  perish ;  to  the  one  we  are 
the  savour  of  death  unto  death,  and  to  the 
other  the  savour  of  life  unto  life  "  (2  Cor.  2 :  15,  le) ; 
for  he  knew  that  the  offer  of  divine  grace  to 
sinners  was  sincere,  and  honorable  to  God, 
even  though  their  guilt  was  increased  by  re- 
fusing to  accept  it.  •  Compare  the  commentary 
on  Matt.  13:  10-15,  and  Acts  28:  26-28,  where 
the  same  passage  from  Isaiah  is  quoted,  and 
Romans  9:  6-33. 

But  wtiile  emphasizing  the  sinful  action  of 
men  in  the  process  by  which  the3'  are  blinded 
and  hardened,  there  may  be  danger  of  forget- 
ting the  relation  of  God  to  this  process.  For 
this  ever  diminishing  susceptibility  to  the 
power  of  truth  on  the  part  of  those  who  will- 
fully reject  it,  which  becomes  at  last  a  sort  of 
moral  inability  to  receive  it,  may  be  looked 
upon  as  being,  in  a  certain  deep  and  true  sense, 
God's  judgment  upon  sin.  For,  in  the  first 
place,  man's  spiritual  nature  was  originated 
by  God,  and  the  dreadful  effect  of  sin  in  ren- 
dering that  nature  unresponsive  to  divine 
truth,  was  really  provided  for  in  the  qualities 
of  it;  and,  in  the  second  place,  the  special  en- 
vironment of  every  human  being  is  fixed,  in  a 
great  measure,  by  the  providence  of  God,  and 
this  environment  has  much  to  do  with  moral 
conduct.  The  signs  by  which  God  appealed 
to  Pharaoh  to  let  the  Israelites  go  from  the 
land,  may  have  been  selected  and  arranged 
with  a  view  to  bringing  out  the  evil  that  was 
in  the  king's  heart.  The  signs  were  such  that 
he  could   nerve  himself  to  resist  them,  one 


after  another,  until  he  was  at  last  constrained 
by  sudden  terror  to  yield.  Divine  providence 
may  be  said  to  have  co-operated  with  his  own 
proud  and  selfish  will  in  hardening  his  heart. 
The  King  of  kings  made  the  wickedness  of 
this  cruel  monarch  an  occasion  for  revealing 
his  own  power  to  the  nations,  and  especially 
to  the  chosen  people,  who  had  become  dis- 
heartened by  oppression.  If  there  was  any- 
thing which  they  specially  needed,  it  was  this 
— to  be  convinced  that  there  was  no  mercy  in 
Pharaoh,  and  all  power  in  Jehovah. 

41.  These  things  said  Esaias,  when 
(rather,  because)  he  saw  his  glory,  and 
spake  of  him.  His  glory — i.  e.,  the  glory 
of  Christ  in  his  higher  nature,  as  he  was  in 
the  beginning  with  God.  (Johni:  1, 2.)  This  is 
evident  from  the  whole  context,  and  espe- 
cially from  ver.ses  37  and  42,  and  is  affirmed 
by  the  best  interpreters — e.  g.,  De  Wette, 
Liicke,  Meyer,  Alford,  Godet,  Lange,  and 
many  others.  Enlightened  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  Evangelist  knew  that  Isaiah  was 
instructed  by  the  same  Spirit  (Acts  28: 25),  and 
that  the  theophany  which  he  saw  was  a  mani- 
festation of  the  Eternal  and  Divine  "Word. 
(Comp.  1  Cor.  10:  4;  1  Pet.  3:  15.)  Indeed, 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  theophanies 
of  the  Old  Testament  were,  all  of  them, 
manifestations  of  the  pre-incarnate  Word. 
"John  held  the  passage  of  Isaiah  to  be  in 
such  a  sense  Messianic,  that,  according  to 
the  method  of  interpretation  which  referred 
all  the  theophanies  in  the  Old  Testament  to 
Christ,  ...  he  could  only  understand  by  the 
divine  glory,  which  the  prophet  saw,  the 
glory  of  Christ." — Lucke. 

The  earliest  copies  (X  a  b  l  mx.  1.  33,  etc.,) 
read  because  (on,)  instead  of  when  (ore,)  and 
according  to  a  strict  interpretation  of  this,  the 
best  supported  text,  the  Evangelist  states  that 
Isaiah  delivered  this  severe  oracle  about  the 
disbelieving  and  judicially  hardened  people, 
because  he  saw  the  glory  of  Christ  and  spoke 
concerning  him.  If  then  the  oracle  was  ful- 
filled in  Isaiah's  time,  that  fulfillment  was 
typical  of  a  more  striking  and  important  ful- 
fillment "in   the  fulness  of  the  time,"  when 


262 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIL 


42  Nevertheless  among  the  chief  rulers  also  many 
believed  on  him ;  but  "  because  of  the  Pharisees  they 
did  not  confess  him,  lest  they  should  be  put  out  of  the 
synagogue: 

43  '  For  they  loved  the  praise  of  men  more  than  the 
praise  of  God. 

44  Jesus  cried  and  said,  "He  that  believeth  on  me, 
believeth  not  on  me,  but  on  him  that  sent  me. 

45  And  *  he  that  seeth  me  seeth  him  that  sent  me. 


42  and  he  spake  of  him.  Nevertheless  even  of  the 
rulers  many  believed  on  him ;  but  because  of  the 
Pharisees  they  did  not  confess  i  i<,  lest  they  should 

43  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue:  for  they  loved  the 
glory  thai  is  of  men  more  than  the  glory  that  is  of 
God. 

44  And  Jesus  cried  and  said,  He  that  believeth  on  me, 
believeth   not  on  me,  but  on    him    that    sent  me. 

45  And   he    that   beholdeth   me  beholdeth   him   that 


och.  7:  13;  9:  22 6  ch.  5:  44 o  Mailc9:  37;  1  Pel.  1:  21 d  ch.  14: 


"the    Word    was    made    flesh"    and  dwelt 
among  men. 

Having  thus  referred  to  the  unbelief  of  the 
great  body  of  the  people,  the  writer  now  re- 
marks, that  there  was  a  considerable  number 
who  were  convinced  that  Christ  was  the  true 
Messiah,  though  they  were  too  timid  to  con- 
fess their  faith. 

42.  Nevertheless  among  (better,  even  of) 
the  chief  rulers  also  many  believed  on 
him.  The  word  rulers  probably  refers  to 
the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  who  were  re- 
garded by  the  Jews  as  pre-eminently  their 
rulers  in  religious  matters.  The  expression, 
believed  on  him,  must  be  interpreted  by 
the  connection  as  denoting  a  rational  convic- 
tion that  he  was  what  he  claimed  to  be,  but 
not  a  profound  and  saving  trust  in  him. 
John  uses  the  word  "believe"  to  denote 
many  different  degrees  of  f:\ith.  Whether  he 
refers  in  this  place  to  men  whose  belief  was 
as  strong  and  practical  as  that  of  Nicodemus 
and  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  is  doubtful;  prob- 
ably he  has  in  mind  persons  who  never  took 
so  decided  a  stand  as  these  men  afterwards 
took.  (Com p.  2:2^,  24;  3:2;  7:48.)  But 
because  of  the  Pharisees— who  were  scru- 
pulous, yea  sanctimonious,  in  their  observance 
of  religious  rites,  but  at  the  same  time,  bitter 
and  powerful  adversaries  of  Christ— they 
did  not  confess  him  (or,  it,)  lest  they 
should  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue. 
See  the  words  of  Christ  in  Matt.  10:  32,  33; 
12:  30;  but  compare  Mark  9:  38,  40. 

43.  For  they  loved  the  praise  {glory) 
of  men  more  than  the  praise  (glory)  of 
God.  By  the  glory  of  men  is  meant  the 
glory  that  is  from  men,  and  by  the  glory  of 
God,  the  glory  that  is  from  God.  Hence 
these  Sanhedrists  were  not  men  who  had  been 
renewed  by  the  Spirit  of  God;  their  religion 
was  not  of  the  heart,  but  of  the  head  ;  they 
had  very  little  sense  of  the  awful  nature  of 
sin,  and  no  experience  of  the  true  peace 
which  God  imparts  to  those  who  delight  in 


him.  For  whoever  cares  more  for  human 
applause  than  for  the  approbation  of  God,  is 
radically  unlike  the  Saviour.  (Comp.  5:  41, 
44.)  The  heart  can  have  but  one  object  of 
supreme  affection.  It  will  be  found  impos- 
sible to  give  men  the  first  place  and  God  the 
second.  Whoever  attempts  to  do  this  will 
soon  find  that  he  is  making  a  vain  and  absurd 
attempt,  working  against  reason  and  con- 
science, and  that  he  must  give  God  the  first 
place  in  his  heart,  or  no  place  at  all. 

44-50,  Summary  of  Christ's  Preach- 
ing, AS  Kecorded  by  John. 

Having  thus  described,  in  ver.  37-43,  the 
attitude  of  the  Jews  towards  Christ  during 
his  ministry,  and  having  shown  that  tlieir 
course  had  been  foreseen  and  predicted  by 
God,  the  Evangelist  now  gives  a  resume  of 
what  Jesus  had  preached,  in  order,  it  may  be, 
to  set  in  clearer  light  their  hardness  of  heart. 

44.  Jesus  cried  and  said.  Not  at  any 
one  time,  but  in  his  public  preaching,  and 
especially  in  his  discourses  to  the  Jews  in 
Jerusalem,  as  preserved  by  John.  While 
the  people  had  been  dull  of  hearing,  Jesus 
had  openly  and  plainly  declared  to  them  the 
way  of  life;  and  in  such  a  manner  that  they 
had  no  excuse  for  rejecting  him,  who  was  that 
way.  He  that  believeth  on  me,  be- 
lieveth not  on  me,  but  on  him  that  sent 
me.  That  is  to  say,  "I  am  the  perfect  rep- 
resentative of  him  that  sent  me,  and  he  that 
believes  in  me  believes  in  him.  As  the  Re- 
vealer,  as  the  Messiah,  as  the  Light  of  the 
world,  as  the  Saviour  of  men,  I  am  insepa- 
rable in  spirit  and  in  action  from  the  Father, 
and  he  who  hears  my  voice,  hears  his  voice; 
he  who  accepts  mj'  grace,  accepts  his  grace. 
It  is  impossible  for  any  man  to  trust  in  me 
without  trusting  in  him:  and  every  one  who 
properly  trusts  in  me,  trusts  in  me  because  I 
am  a  revelation  of  the  Father's  love  and 
power."  (Comp.  7:  16;  Mark  9:  37.)  A 
paradox,  suggestive  of  the  deepest  truth  ! 
45.  And  he  that  seeth  (beholdeth)  me, 


Ch.  XIL] 


JOHN. 


263 


46  » I  am  come  a  light  into  Ihe  world,  that  whosoever 
believeth  on  me  should  not  abide  in  darkness. 

47  And  if  any  man  hear  my  words,  and  believe  not, 
'  I  judge  him  not :  for  '  1  came  not  to  judge  the  world, 
but  to  save  the  world. 

48  "^  He  that  rejecteth  me,  and  receiveth  not  my 
■words,  hath  one  that  judgeth  him:  « the  word  that  I 
have  spoken,  the  same  shall  judge  him  iu  the  last  day. 


o    h.  3:  19;  8:  12:  9:5.  39;  ver.  35,  36....6  ch.  5;  45;  8 :  15, ! 


46  sent  me.  I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world,  that 
whosoever   believeth  on  me   may  not  abide  in  ibe 

47  darkness.  And  if  any  man  hear  my  sayings,  and 
keep  them  not,  I  judge  him  not:  for  I  came  not  to 

48  judge  the  world,  but  to  save  the  world.  He  that 
rejecteth  me,  and  receiveth  not  my  sayings,  hath 
one  that  judgeth  him:  the  word  that  I  spake,  the 


.c  ch.  3:  17.... <2  Luke  10:  16....eDeut.  18:  19;  Murk  16:  16. 


seeth  (beholdeth)  him  that  sent  me.  Who- 
ever looks  upon  Christ  in  such  a  way  as  to 
discern  his  true  character  and  glory,  beholds 
the  divine  character  and  glory.  "In  his 
working  and  administration,  the  believing  eye 
beholds  that  of  the  sender;  in  the  glory  of  the 
Son  that  of  the  Father,  1:  14;  Heb.  1:  3.— 
Meyer.  The  language  of  this  and  of  the  pre- 
ceding verse  is  in  agreement  with  that  of 
verse  41,  in  which  the  Evangelist  represents 
the  theophany  which  Isaiah  saw  (ch.  6)  as  a 
manifestation  of  Christ's  glory.  (See  also  5  : 
24;  8:  19,  42;  10:  30,  38;  14;  10.)  But  it  is 
surely  difficult  to  vindicate  either  of  these 
expressions  (ver.  *i,  44, 45)  unless  Jesus  Christ 
was,  in  his  higher  nature,  strictly  divine.  If 
the  Word  was  God  (i;i),  but  not  otherwise,  he 
could  be  a  perfect  revelation  of  God. 

46.  I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world. 
The  word  I  and  light  are  emphatic  by  virtue 
of  their  position ;  and,  perhaps,  the  exact 
force  of  the  original  would  be  more  ade- 
quately represented  by  omitting  the  indefinite 
a  before  light.  There  is  nothing  equivalent 
to  it  in  the  Greek.  The  meaning  is,  "/,  and 
no  other,  have  come  as  in  a  pre-eminent 
sense,  light,  into  the  world  of  mankind,  sunk 
in  the  darkness  of  sin."  The  expression  is, 
therefore,  substantially  equivalent  to  8:  12: 
"I  am  the  light  of  the  world."  "Through 
me  alone  is  it  possible  for  men  to  have  a  true 
and  saving  knowledge  of  God."  That  who- 
soever believeth  on  me  should  {may)  not 
abide  in  {the)  darkness.  That  is,  "my 
purpose  in  coming  into  the  world  is  this,  that 
every  one  who  believes  in  me  may  pass  out  of 
spiritual  darkness  into  spiritual  light — out  of 
death  into  life,  out  of  error  and  sin  into  truth 
and  holiness."     (Comp.  5:24.) 

47.  And  if  any  man  hear  my  (sayings) 
words,  and  believe  (keep  them)  not.  Or, 
it  might  be  tran.slated :  "7/"  a7iy  one  shall 
have  heard  my  words,  and  kept  them  not"  — 
the  speaker  taking  his  place  in  thought  at  the 
last  day,  when  the  heariiig  und  keeping  not 
are  already  past.     But  the  meaning  would  be 


essentially  the  same  with  this  rendering,  as 
with  the  common  one.  The  term  hear  de- 
notes in  this  case  the  mental  act  of  hearing, 
without  the  moral  act  of  hearkening  to  or 
obeying,  which  is  often  implied  in  the  use  of 
this  word.  The  term  translated  believe,  or, 
keep,  when  used  of  doctrines,  precepts,  and 
the  like,  denotes  keeping  by  fulflllment,  and 
not  merely  guarding  or  holding  fast  in 
the  mind. — Meyer.  Hence,  to  hear  the 
words  of  Christ  and  not  keep  them,  is  just 
the  opposite  of  believing  in  him ;  for  the 
words  of  Christ  require  belief  in  himself  as 
the  very  root  and  source  of  acceptable  service 
to  God.  "  This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye 
believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent."  (6:29,) 
"This  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  that 
every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth 
on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life."  (6:  40.)  I 
judge  him  not :  for  I  came  not  to  judge 
the  world,  but  to  save  the  world.  The 
word  judge  is  here  used  in  a  condemnatory 
sense,  as  very  often  by  the  Lord,  in  his  dis- 
courses recorded  Vjy  John.  Jesus  here  asserts 
that  his  object  in  coming  into  the  world  was 
to  save  it,  not  to  condemn  it;  and  that  he  is 
engaged  in  doing  the  former,  not  the  latter — 
a  statement  which  clearly  proves  that  the  ful- 
fillment of  prophecy,  referred  to  by  the  Evan- 
gelist in  the  preceding  paragraph,  was  not 
sought  as  an  end  by  Christ,  but  was  brought 
about  by  the  sinfulness  of  the  people,  while 
he  was  offering  them  life  and  peace. 

48.  He  that  rejecteth  me,  and  receiv- 
eth not  my  words.  These  two  thingi 
always  go  together;  for  no  one  can  truly  re- 
ceive and  keep  the  words  of  Christ,  without 
receiving  him ;  and  no  one  can  hear  the 
words  of  Christ,  and  receive  them  not,  without 
rejecting  him.  For  he  is  himself  the  very 
substance  of  his  message.  He  declares  him- 
self to  be  the  Good  Shepherd,  the  Door  of  the 
Sheep,  the  True  Bread  from  heaven.  To  ac- 
cept his  word  is,  therefore,  to  believe  in  him 
as  the  Way,  and  the  Truth,  and  the  Life. 
Hath  one  that  judgeth  him.     The  word 


264 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XII. 


49  For  "I  have  uot  spoken  of  myself;  but  the  Father 
■which  sent  me,  he  gave  lue  a  commandment,  *  what  I 
should  say,  and  what  I  should  speak. 

50  And  1  know  that  his  commandment  is  life  ever- 
lasting: whatsoever  I  speak  therefore,  even  as  the 
Father  said  unto  me,  so  I  speak. 


49  same  shall  judge  him  in  the  last  day.  For  I  spake 
not  from  myself;  but  the  Father  wlio  sent  uie,  he 
hath  given  me  a  commandment,  what  1  should  say, 

50  and  what  I  should  speak.  And  1  know  that  his 
commandment  is  life  eternal:  the  things  therefore 
which  I  speak,  even  as  the  Father  hath  said  unto  me, 
so  I  speak. 


ach.  8:  38;  14:  10 b  Deul.  18:  18. 


hath  seems  to  be  emphatic.  Such  a  one  has 
even  now  his  judge,  and  his  trial  has  begun 
in  the  present  life.  For  he  is  already  con- 
demned by  the  word  wliich  he  rejects.  It  is  a 
discriminating  word,  separating  the  wheat 
from  the  chatf.  The  word  that  I  have 
spoken,  the  same  shall  judge  him  in  the 
last  day.  For  the  voice  of  truth  never 
changes;  it  will  be  the  same  at  the  last  as 
now.  He  that  believeth  not  is  condemned 
already,  and  his  present  condemnation  is  sure 
proof  of  his  final  rejection :  for  the  same 
truth  which  judges  him  now  will  be  his  judge 
when  the  heavens  are  rolled  together  as  a 
scroll,  and  the  elements  melt  with  fervent 
heat.  The  last  day,  as  used  in  this  Gospel 
(see  6:  39,  40,  44,  54;  11:  24;  and  conip.  "the 
last  trumpet,"  1  Cor.  15:  52),  means  the  time 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  the 
final  judgment— the  time  when  "all  that  are 
in  their  graves  shall  hear  his  voice  and  shall 
come  forth,  they  that  have  done  good  unto 
the  resurrection  of  life;  and  they  that  have 
done  evil  untothe  resurrection  of  damnation." 
(5:29.)  There  are  many  last  things,  but  "the 
last  day"  is  of  all  others  the  one  which  men 
should  be  prepared  to  meet.  And  the  last 
day  of  one's  earthly  life  brings  him  judicially 
face  to  face  with  the  last  day  of  human  his- 
tory, when  the  Mediatorial  reign  will  cease, 
and  he  that  is  unjust  will  be  unjust  still.  (Rev. 

S2:  11.) 

49.  For  I  have  not  spoken  (spake  not) 
of  {from)  myself— i.  e.,  "not  from  myself, 
as  a  person  acting  apart  from  the  Father." 
(See  Notes  on  5 :  30;  7:  16-28;  8:  26,  28,  38.) 
Every  word  that  he  uttered  was  in  harmony 
with  the  Father's  will.  He  came  to  reveal  the 
Father,  but  in  doing  this  he  revealed  himself 
likewise.  Of  the  latter  fact,  that  he  spake  out 
of  his  own  mind  and  heart,  the  Jews  had  no 
need  of  being  reminded.  They  were  all  along 
disposed  to  insist  upon  this  as  the  whole  truth, 
and  to  deny  that  his  message  was  the  Father's 
also.  Hence  his  continual  and  emphatic  iter- 
ation of  this  thought,  that  his  word  must  be 


traced  back  to  a  divine  source — to  the  very 
mind  and  will  of  God  the  Father.  But  the 
Father  which  sent  me,  he  gave  me  a 
commandment,  what  I  should  say,  and 
what  I  should  speak.  The  former  expres- 
sion, what  I  should  say,  may  denote  the 
.s?<6steHce of  his  teaching,  and  the  latter,  what 
I  should  speak,  the  tnatiner  of  communi- 
cating it.  Tlie  word  commandment  answers 
to  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  a  theanthropic  be- 
ing, human  as  well  as  divine,  and  tiiat  he 
came  to  reveal,  in  his  life  and  teaching,  the 
Father's  will.  The  statement  does  not  dilfer 
in  substance  from  that  which  Jesus  made  in 
Jerusalem,  when  "the  Jews"  asked  in  sur- 
prise: "How  knoweth  this  man  letters,  not 
having  learned?"  viz.:  "My  teaching  is  not 
mine,  but  his  that  sent  me.  .  .  He  thatspeaketh 
from  himself,  seeketh  his  own  glory;  but  he 
that  seeketh  the  glory  of  him  that  sent  him, 
ihe  same  is  true."  (7:  16,  18;,Rev.  Ver.  See 
commentary  there.) 

50.  And  I  know  that  his  commandment 
is  life  everlasting.  In  other  words,  obedi- 
ence to  his  commandment  insures  eternal  life. 
Or  it  may  be  still  better  to  say  that  the  word 
commandment  here  stands  for  the  whole 
doctrine  which,  by  the  Father's  will,  Jesus 
taught — that  is,  for  the  truth  which  is  called 
the  gospel.  This  truth  is  a  means  of  eternal 
life;  this  gospel,  when  received,  is  heavenly 
manna  and  living  water  to  the  spirit.  Divine 
truth,  in  a  soul  prepared  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
welcome  it,  is  a  source  of  holy  affections — 
a  fountain  of  love,  joy,  peace,  and  hope. 
Whatsoever  I  speak  therefore,  even  as 
the  Father  said  unto  me,  so  I  speak.  In 
the  preceding  verse,  Jesus  is  represented  as 
declaring  that  God  the  Father  had  command- 
ed him  what  he  should  say,  and  in  this,  as 
affirming  that  he  speaks  precisely  as  he  has 
been  told  or  commissioned  to  speak.  (See  on 
ver.  49.) 

"With  these  words  the  Evangelist  closes  his 
recapitulation  of  what  Jesus  had  testified  con- 
cerning himself  and  his  teaching  to  the  Jews 


Cii.  XIII.] 


JOHN. 


265 


CHAPTER    XIII. 


NOW  "before  the  feast  of  the  passover,  when  .Testis 
knew  that  ''  his  hour  was  coiue  that  he  should  de- 
Eart  out  of  this  woild  uuto  the  I'atlK'r,  having  loved 
is  own  which  were  in  the  world,  he  loved  them  unto 
the  end. 


1  Now  l)eff)re  the  feast  of  the  passover,  .Tesus  know- 
ing that  his  hour  was  coiue  tliat  lie  should  depart  out 
of  this  world  unto  the  Father,  having  loved  his  own 
who  were  in  the  world,  he  loved  them  >  uuto  the 


a  Matt.  26 :  2 b  ch.  12  :  23  |  17  : 


-1  Or,  to  the  uttermost. 


in  Jerusalem.  His  effort  to  reach  the  people, 
and  lead  them  to  accept  him  as  the  Messiah, 
has  failed.  The  members  of  the  Sanhedrin, 
and  a  great  part  of  the  Jews  following  them 
as  leaders,  were  now  resolved  to  compass  the 
death  of  Christ;  amd  he,  having  taught  them 
and  wept  over  them,  now  leaves  them  to  their 
doom,  and  speaks  his  last  words  before  death 
to  the  little  company  of  his  disciples. 


Ch.  13.  The  last  appearance  of  Jesus  in  the 
courts  of  the  temple,  as  a  teacher  of  the  people 
was  on  Tuesday,  or,  at  the  latest,  on  Wednes- 
day. Then  going  away,  as  John  relates, 
he  was  concealed  from  all  but  his  intimate 
friends  and  disciples.  (12: 36.)  The  place  of  his 
retirement  seems  to  have  been  Bethany  ;  and 
on  his  way  thither  he  is  supposed  by  Robin- 
son (see  "Harmony  of  the  Gospels")  to  have 
foretold  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  the 
persecution  of  his  disciples  (Matt. -.;*:  i-u;  Mark  13 : 
14-37 ;  Luke  21 : 5-19) ;  to  have  described  the  signs  of 
his  coming  to  destroy  Jerusalem,  and  to  put 
an  end  to  the  Jewish  State  (Matt. 24: 15-42;  Markis: 
14-37;  Luke  21: 20-36);  to  havc  predicted  his  final 
coming,  at  the  Day  of  Judgment  (Matt.  24:  43-51) ; 
to  have  spoken  the  parables  of  the  ten  vir- 
gins, and  of  the  talents  (Matt.  25:  i-.io) ;  and  to 
have  pictured  the  scenes  of  the  Judgment 
Day.  (Matt.  25: 31-46.)  The  supper  at  the  house  of 
Simon  the  leper,  of  which  John  has  spoken 
already,  may  have  taken  place  in  the  after- 
noon of  "Wednesday,  or,  as  John's  narrative 
suggests,  in  the  afternoon,  towards  evening, 
of  the  preceding  Saturday.  (Matt.  26:  e-ie;  Mark  14 : 
3-11;  John  12: 2-8.)  During  Wednesday,  the  rulcrs 
cons]iired  to  take  Jesus    by  craft,  that  they 

migVlt    kill    him  (Matt.  26:  3-5;  Mark  14:  1-2;  Liike22:2)  ; 

and  from  the  hour  of  that  supper,  whether  on 
Saturday  or  Wednesday,  Judas  began  to  seek 
a  fsivorable  opportunity  to  betray  him   into 

their    hands.    (Matt.  26:  I6;  MarkU;  II;  Luke  22:  6.)      In 

the  afternoon  of  Thursday,  Jesus  sent  two  of 
his  disciples  into  the  city,  to  make  ready  the 
Paschal  Supper,  that  he  might  eat  it  with  the 

twelve.    (Matt.  26:  17-19;  Mark  14:  12-16;  Luke  22:  7-12.)    All 


these  events  are  omitted  in  the  narrative, 
partly  because  they  were  well  known  through 
the  other  Gospels,  and  partly  because  they 
were  not  necessary  to  John's  purpose  in  set- 
ting forth  the  divine-human  personality  of 
Christ. 

1-11.  Jesus  Washes  His  Disciples' 
Feet.     {Fourth  Passover,  April  7,  A.  u.  30). 

1.  Now  before  the  feast  of  the  pass- 
over.  This  note  of  time  is  indefinite.  Consid- 
ered by  itself,  it  might  refer  to  a  period  ante- 
dating the  festival  named,  by  the  space  of  a 
moment,  an  hour,  a  daj',  or  a  month  ;  but  it 
might  just  as  well  refer  to  a  period  preceding 
and  introducing  the  Paschal  Supper.  If  it  is 
to  be  connected  with  thr-  la-st  and  principal 
clause  of  the  verse,  and  if  that  clau.se,  loved 
them  unto  the  end,  refers  to  the  wonderful 
act  of  condescending  love  which  the  Evangel- 
ist goes  on  to  describe,  the  hour  intended  must 
have  been  early  on  Thursday  evening;  for 
the  supper  which  John  proceeds  to  speak  of 
took  place  at  that  time — soon  after  this  illu-s- 
trative  act  of  condescending  love.  Thus  far 
interpreters  agree.  But  some  believe  that 
John  supposed  this  Thursday  evening  to  be  at 
the  close  of  the  1.3th  and  the  beginning  of  the 
14th  day  of  the  month — that  is,  one  day  pre- 
vious to  the  appointed  time  for  eating  the 
Passover;  while  others  believe  that  he  si:p- 
posed  it  to  be  at  the  close  of  the  14th  and  tiie 
beginning  or'  the  l-5th  day  of  the  month — that 
is,  at  the  regular  time  for  eating  the  Paschal 
Supper.  According  to  the  former  view,  his 
narrative  disagrees  with  the  testimony  of  the 
Synoptical  Gospels;  according  to  the  latter, 
it  agrees  with  that  testimony.  For  an  able 
vindication  of  the  latter  view,  see  Robinson's 
Greek  "Harmony  of  the  Gospels,"  pp.  211- 
224.  He  says :  "  It  has  been  the  object  of  this 
Note  to  show  that,  upon  all  grounds,  both  of 
philology  and  history,  the  conclusion  is  valid 
and  irrefragable,  that  the  testimonj'  of  John 
in  respect  to  the  Passover  need  not  be,  and  is 
not  to  be,  understood  as  conflicting  with  that 
of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke."    When  Je- 


266 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIIL 


2  And  supper  being  ended,  "the  devil  having  now 
put  into  the  heart  of  Judas  Iscariot,  Simon's  son,  to  be- 
tray him; 


2  end.    And  during  supper,  the  devil  having  already 
put  into  the  heart  of  Judas  Iscariot,  Simon's  son,  to 


a  Luke  22  :  3  ;  ver.  27. 


sus  knew  (or,  Jesus  knowing)  that  his  hour 
was  come  that  he  should  depart  out  of 
this  world  unto  the  Father,  having  loved 
his  own  which  were  in  the  world,  he 
loved  them  unto  the  end.  Every  clause 
of  this  verse  requires  explanation.  But  the 
principal  statement  is  found  in  the  last :  loved 
them  unto  the  end.  It  was  the  love  of  Je- 
sus to  his  own  that  John  saw  in  the  signifi- 
cant act  which  he  was  about  to  describe.  For 
the  word  loved  is  here  used  of  that  "singular 
proof  of  love  which  Jesus  gave  to  his  disci- 
ples by  washing  their  feet." — Orinun.  The 
Evangelist  saw  in  this  act  perfect  love,  per- 
fectly expressed — as,  indeed,  it  was  no  unusual 
thing  for  him  to  see  love  itself  in  an  act  of 
love.     (Comp.  1  John  4:  10,  and  5:3.) 

The  persons  to  whom  this  love  was  now 
manifested  are  described  as  his  own  which 
Avere  in  the  world  ;  the  words  his  own 
referring  especially  to  the  little  group  of 
trusted  followers  whom  he  had  selected  from 
the  larger  number  given  him  by  the  Father — 
to  the  eleven  with  whom  he  was  about  to  ob- 
serve the  Passover,  and  to  institute  the  Holy 
Supper;  and  the  words,  which  were  in 
the  world,  referring  to  the  sphere  of  trial 
and  service  in  which  he  had  been  with  them, 
and  in  which  they  were  still  to  be  after  his 
departure.  But  while  these  were,  doubtless, 
especially  in  the  mind  of  John,  as  those  to 
whom  the  Saviour's  love  was  at  this  time  so 
tenderly  expressed,  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  he  thought  of  that  love  as  restricted 
to  them.  It  embraced  all  who  were  at  that 
time  "his  own."  and,  indeed,  all  who  were  to 
become  his  own  in  after  ages.  (Comp.  17:  20.) 

The  Greek  words  translated  unto  the  end, 
sometimes  signify  "to  the  highest  degree"; 
but  this  meaning,  though  preferred  by  some 
interpreters,  does  not  agree  with  the  clause, 
having  loved  his  own,  as  well  as  does  the 
one  given  by  our  translation.  (Comp.  Matt. 
10:  22,  and  24:  13.)  John  saw  in  the  act  of 
Jesus  which  he  was  about  to  describe  the  clear- 
est evidence  that  the  Saviour's  love  to  his  dis- 
ciples continued  to  the  last  hour  of  his  minis- 
try on  earth ;  he  saw  that  in  the  immediate 
prospect  of  his  agonj-,  and  of  his  consequent 


glory,   Christ's  deep  and  self- forgetful  affec- 
tion was  signally  revealed. 

The  first  participial  clause:  Knowing  that 
his  hour  was  come  that  he  should  depart  out 
of  this  world  unto  the  Father — Eev.  Ver. — 
has  sometimes  been  understood  to  mean: 
Though  he  knew  that  his  hour  was  C07ne,  etc. , — 
as  if  this  knowledge  might  have  been  expected 
to  turn  away  his  mind  from  his  disciples,  and 
to  render  such  an  expression  of  love  to  them 
more  imj)robable  than  it  would  have  been  at 
any  previous  moment.  But  it  is,  perhaps, 
more  natural  to  find  in  this  clause  a  reason  for 
the  act  remembered  by  John.  The  prospect 
of  at  once  leaving  his  own  moved  him  to  the 
wonderful  act  of  love  and  condescension  which 
the  Evangelist  relates.  "Because  he  knew 
that  his  hour  was  come  that  he  sliould  depart 
out  of  this  world  unto  the  Father,  he  loved 
his  own  to  the  end."  The  second  participial 
clause,  in  like  manner,  serves  to  account  for 
the  singular  proof  which  he  gave  of  his  love. 
The  fact  that  he  had  all  along  loved  his  own. 
helped  to  explain  the  depth  and  tenderness  of 
his  aflfection  at  the  last  moment.  Love  never 
faileth.     It  is  crescent  and  immortal. 

2.  And  supper  being  ended  (rather,  as 
supper  v)as  taking  place.)  This  latter  is  a 
literal  rendering  of  the  first  clause,  according 
to  the  now  accepted  text.  By  it  the  writer 
points  out  more  exacth'  the  time  when  Jesus 
rose  from  his  place  to  wash  his  disciples'  feet. 
According  to  the  preceding  verse  it  was  "be- 
fore the  feast  of  the  passover"  had  actually 
begun  ;  and  according  to  this  it  was  while  the 
supper  was,  in  some  sense,  taking  place — per- 
haps, soon  after  the  preliminary  cup  of  wine 
had  been  drunk,  and  while  the  principal 
course  of  food  was  brought  on  for  the  guests 
who  had  already  taken  their  places  at  the 
table.  Then,  instead  of  beginning  the  meal, 
Jesus  "riseth,"  etc.  (ver.4.)  The  clause  before 
us  has  been  variously  translated  :  by  Noyes, 
"And  supper  being  served";  by  Alford, 
"And  when  supper  was  begun";  by  David- 
son, "And  when  supper  was  ready";  by 
Meyer,  "And  whilst  it  is  becoming  supper 
time";  by  "Watkins,  "And  it  now  becoming 
supper  time"  ;  in  the  Bible  Union  Revision, 


Ch.  XIII.] 


JOHN. 


267 


3  Jesus  knowing  "that  the  Father  had  given  all  things 
into  his  haTids,  and  'that  he  was  come  from  God,  and 
went  to  God; 

4  =  He  risetli  from  supper,  and  laid  aside  his  gar- 
ments; and  took  a  towel,  and  girded  himself. 


3  betray   him,  Jesus,  knowing  that  the  Father  had 
given  all  things  into  his  liands,  and  that  he  caiue 

4  forth   from  God,  and  goctli  unto  God,  riseth  Ironi 
supper,  and  layeth  aside  his  garments ;  and  he  took 


a  Matt.  11:  21;  28:  18:  cb.  3:  35;  17:  2;  Acts  2  :  36;  1  Cor.  15:  27;  Heb.  2:8 6  ch.  8 :  42 ;  16:  28 c  Luke  22:  27;  Pbil.  2:  7,8. 


"  And  supper  being  served"  ;  in  the  Revised 
English  Version,  "And  at  supper  time." 
The  Common  Version,  "And  supper  being 
ended,"  represents  a  different  reading,  which 
liad  the  participle  in  the  past  tense  instead  of 
the  present  (yevofiiuov,  instead  of  ytuo/u.ei'ou. )  The 
devil  havin§^  now  (already)  put  into  the 
heart  of  Judas  Iscariot,  Simon's  son, 
to  betray  him.  This  remark  is  inserted  by 
the  Evangelist,  in  order  to  show  the  wonder- 
ful depth  of  Jesus'  love;  for  the  traitor  was 
one  of  those  whose  feet  the  Saviour  stooped  to 
wash,  and  a  knowledge  of  the  dreadful  crime 
which  darkened  the  soul  of  this  man,  did  not 
quench  the  ardor  or  modify  the  expression  of 
Christ's  love.  Meyer  remarks  that  the  full 
name  of  the  traitor  "contains  a  shuddering 
emphasis."  This  Evangelist  does  not  tell  us 
when  Satan  first  put  into  the  heart  of  Judas 
Iscariot  the  purpose  to  deliver  .Tesus  into 
the  hands  of  his  enemies;  but  from  the  words 
of  Mark  (i*;  lo)  it  is  natural  to  conclude  that 
this  Satanic  purpose  was  formed  soon  after, 
if  not  during,  the  supper  at  Bethany,  in  the 
house  of  Simon,  when  Mary  anointed  Jesus, 
and  the  money  for  which  the  ointment  might 
have  been  sold  was  coveted  in  vain  by  the 
traitor.  If  so,  the  heart  of  Judas  had  been 
filled  with  the  purpose  to  betray  his  Master 
for  at  least  a  full  day,  probably  five  days,  and 
Jesus  was  perfectly  aware  of  that  purpose, 
together  with  all  that  had  been  done  to  ac- 
complish it. 

3.  The  word  Jesus  is  to  be  omitted  at  the 
beginning  of  tliis  verse.  Knowing  that  the 
Father  had  given  all  things  into  his 
hands,  and  that  he  Avas  come  (or,  came 
forth)  from  God,  and  went  (or,  goeth)  to 
God.  Here  the  knowledge  of  Jesus  is  so 
described  as  to  exhibit  in  a  clearer  light  his 
condescension  and  love  in  washing  the  dis- 
ciples' feet,  and  the  sense  would  be  given  by 
translating  the  verse:  "Though  he  knows 
that  the  Father  gave  all  things  into  his 
hands,"  etc.  The  Lord  of  all,  stooping  to 
menial  service,  out  of  love  to  his  own!  This 
is  the  point  of  view  from  which  John  here 
looks  at  the  scene  which  he  is  about  to  de- 


scribe. And  it  is  certainly  well  chosen. 
From  no  other  point  can  the  amazing  wisdom 
and  love  of  the  Saviour  be  more  clearly  seen. 
4.  He  riseth  from  supper.  For  they 
had  already  taken  their  places  around  the 
table,  though  the  sup])er  had  not  yet  begun. 
In  what  spirit  the  disciples  had  coine  to  the 
table,  may  perhaps  be  inferred  from  the  lan- 
guage of  Luke  22:  24:  "Then  arose  a  strife 
among  them,  which  of  them  should  be  ac- 
counted greatest."  If  so,  the  rising  from  the 
supper,  here  mentioned,  probably  took  place, 
as  noted  above,  soon  after  the  preliminary 
cup  of  wine  had  been  drunk  (Luke 22: 17,)  which 
was  followed  by  ablutions,  by  bringing  on 
the  bitter  herbs,  the  unleavened  bread,  the 
roasted  lamb,  etc.  Whether  the  strife  among 
the  disciples  was  occasioned  by  the  necessity 
that  some  one  of  them  should  wash  his  com- 
panions' feet,  because  there  was  no  servant 
provided,  cannot  be  known;  but  their  con- 
tention n)ay  have  been  one  of  the  occasions 
for  the  Saviour's  act.  And  laid  aside  his 
{outer)  garments.  For  the  word  here  used 
signifies  properly  the  outer  garments,  as  do 
the  words  coat  and  cloak  in  English.  And 
took,  etc. ;  or,  rather,  taking  a  towel,  he 
girded  himself.  With  what  feelings  did  the 
disciples  observe  this?  Why  did  they  not  all 
spring  to  their  feet  to  take  tlieir  Lord's  place 
in  the  service  which  he  was  preparing  to  ren- 
der? Was  therein  his  countenance  and  b."~,r- 
ing  a  holy  purpose  and  authority  that  over- 
awed them,  and  made  it  impossible  for  then 
to  do  aught  but  wonder  and  wait?  i'v,  were 
they  so  filled  with  the  spirit  of  rivalry  that 
no  one  was  willing  at  the  moment,  even  for 
his  Lord's  sake,  to  waive  his  own  claims  an'', 
take  the  place  of  a  servant?  It  is  diflScult  to 
account  for  their  remaining  unmoved,  unless 
we  suppose  that  reverence  or  ambition  pre- 
vented them  from  asking  to  do  the  menial 
service  which  they  saw  their  Master  under- 
taking. Possibly,  in  their  surprise  and  con- 
fusion, they  knew  not  what  to  say,  or  to  do; 
but  there  is  some  reason  to  suspect  that  they 
may  have  been,  one  and  all,  unwilling  to 
take  the  lowest  place. 


268 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


5  After  that  he  poureth  water  into  a  bason,  and  began 
to  wash  the  disciples'  feet,  and  to  wipe  them  with  the 
towel  wherewith  he  was  girded. 

6  Then  coiueth  he  to  Simon  Peter:  and  Peter  saith 
unto  him,  Ixird,  "dost  thou  wash  my  feet? 

7  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  What  I  do  thou 
knowest  not  now  ;  *  but  thou  shalt  know  hereafter. 

8  Peter  saith  unto  him,  Thou  shah  never  wash  my 
feet.  Jesus  answered  him,  ■;  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou 
hast  no  part  with  me. 


5  a  towel,  and  girded  himself.  Then  he  poureth  water 
into  the  bason,  and  began  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet, 
and  to  wipe  them  with  tlie  towel  wherewith  he  was 

6  girded.    So  he  cometh  to  Simon   Peter.     He  saiih 

7  unto  him.  Lord,  dost  thou  wash  my  feet?  Jesus 
answered  and  said  unto  him,  What  I  do  thou  know- 
est not  now;  but  thou  shalt  understand  herealter. 

8  Peter  saith  unto  him.  Thou  shalt  never  wash  my 
feet.    Jesus  answered  him,  If  1  wash  thee  not,  thou 


aSeeMatt.  3:14....i  ver.  12.... c  ch.  3  :  5 ;  1  Cor.  6 :  11;  Eph.  5:26;  Tit.  3:5;  Heb.  10:  22. 


5.  After  that  (or,  then)  he  poureth  water 
into  a  [the)  bason.  That  is,  the  bason  that 
had  been  provided  for  such  a  purpose,  and 
was,  therefore,  at  hand.  Hence  the  article. 
How  distinctly  is  the  scene  portra^-ed!  The 
narrative  bears  upon  its  face  the  clearest  evi- 
dence that  it  was  written  by  an  eye-witness. 
And  began  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet, 
and  to  wipe  them  with  the  towel  where- 
with he  was  girded.  From  this  language 
it  appears  that  Jesus  made  an  actual  begin- 
ning in  washing  his  disciples'  feet,  and,  prob- 
ably, with  no  remonstrance  from  them.  With 
whom  ho  began,  the  Evangelist  does  not  say; 
but  certainly  not  with  Peter. 

6.  Then  cometh  he  (or,  so  he  cometh, 
or,  lit.,  he  cometh  therefore)  to  Simon 
Peter.  Therefore,  (or,  so)—i.  e.,  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  task  which  he  had  undertaken  to 
perform.  This  task  brought  him  naturally 
to  Simon  Poter.  And  Peter  (A<;i  saith  unto 
him.  The  words  and,  and  Peter,  do  not  be- 
long to  the  true  text,  and  are  omitted  in  the 
Revised  Version;  but  the  question  itself 
shows  that  it  was  addressed  by  Peter  to  Jesus. 
liOrd,  dost  thou  wash  my  feet?  This  was 
evidently  spoken  in  a  tone  of  remonstrance. 
Peter  means  to  say  that  the  manifest  inten- 
tion of  Jesus  is  surprising  to  him.  The  em- 
phatic words  of  his  question  are  thou  and 
my.  He  wondered  that  such  a  one  as  Jesus, 
the  Lord,  should  purpose  to  wash  the  feet  of 
such  a  one  as  Peter,  the  disciple.  His  ques- 
tion, therefore,  with  whatever  feeling  it  may 
have  been  asked,  contains  a  virtual  affirma- 
tion that  it  would  be  far  more  suitable  for  the 
di.sciple  to  wash  the  Master's  feet  than  for  the 
Master  to  wash  the  disciple's  feet.  But  it 
does  not  imply  that  even  this  disciple  was 
ready  to  take  his  Master's  place  and  finish  the 
humble  service  that  he  was  performing. 

7.  What  I  do  thou  knowest  not  noAv; 
but  thou  shalt  know  (or,  understand)  here- 
after. Peter  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of 
the  outward  service  which  Jesus  had  been 


rendering  to  some  of  the  disciples,  and  was 
now  about  to  render  to  him  ;  but  the  spiritual 
significance  of  that  service — what  it  was  mor- 
ally and  religiously — he  failed  to  perceive. 
There  was  in  it  a  depth  of  meaning,  a  lesson 
of  condescending  love  for  the  sanctification  of 
believers,  which  Peter  did  not  now  appre- 
hend, but  which  was  to  be  made  plain  to  him 
afterwards.  This  promise  may  refer  to  the 
explanation  recorded  in  verses  12-17,  below ; 
but  it  may  also  refer  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  who, 
by  his  work  in  the  souls  of  the  disciples,  was 
to  reveal  to  them  the  full  significance  of  the 
Saviour's  life.  The  latter  was,  at  least,  in- 
cluded in  the  Redeemer's  thought. 

8.  Thou  shalt  never  wash  my  feet. 
Tliis  is  the  correct  version  of  Peter's  reply; 
"Neither  now,  nor  ever,  to  eternity,  shalt 
thou  wash  my  feet."  The  negation  is  abso- 
lute ;  and,  according  to  the  true  text,  a  second- 
ary emphasis  falls  on  the  pronoun  my.  Is 
not  this  Peter  our  old  acquaintance  of  the  first 
three  Gospels?  Here,  as  there,  his  respect  for 
Jesus  is  clouded  by  assumption.  His  intended 
confession  of  inferioritj-  is  dictatorial.  Good 
is  mingled  with  evil  in  his  character,  and  we 
are  pleased  and  oflfended  by  the  same  act.  Are 
there  not  Peters  in  every  age?  If  I  wash 
thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part  with  me. 
This  is  a  second  intimation  (see  ver.  7)  that 
there  was  a  deeper  meaning  in  his  act  than 
Peter  imagined.  It  signified  more  than  a  re- 
moval of  dust  from  the  feet;  it  was  emblem- 
atic of  the  continued  renewal  (2Cor.  4:i6)  by 
which  the  believer  is  made  meet  for  an  inher- 
itance with  the  saints  in  light.  (Coi.i:i2.)  For, 
though  a  persistent  refusal  to  yield  to  his 
Lord's  will  in  any  matter,  however-external 
or  trivial  it  might  appear,  would  have  sepa- 
rated Peter  from  the  Saviour's  kingdom  and 
fellowship,  it  is  far  more  natural  to  suppose 
that  Jesus  here  referred  to  a  spiritual  cleans- 
ing, represented  by  the  act  of  feet-washing, 
than  to  suppose  that  he  referred  to  the  mere 
physical  act  in  question.    For  the  former  sup- 


Ch.  XIII.] 


JOHN. 


269 


9  Simon  Peter  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  not  my  feet  | 
only,  but  also  my  hands  and  my  head. 

10  Jesus  saith  to  him,  He  that  is  washed  needeth  not 
save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit:  and  "ye 
are  clean,  but  not  all.  | 


9  hast  no  part  with  me.  Simon  Peter  saith  unto  him, 
Lord,  not  my  feet  only,  but  also  my  hands  and  my 

10  head.  Jesus  saith  to  him.  He  that  is  bathed  need- 
eth not '  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  he  is  clean  every 


a  ch.  15 :  3. 1  Some  aucieni  autboritica  umit,  save,  and  bit  feet. 


position  best  agrees  with  his  language  in  verse 
10,  and  well  accords  with  the  profound  and 
suggestive,  and,  sometimes,  enigmatical  char- 
acter of  his  teaching.  (Comp.  2  :  19-21  ;  4  :  10, 
13;  7  :  37,  39.)  To  have  part  withChrist,  is  to 
share  in  his  reign  and  glory  and  love  (conip. 
Matt.  24:  51;  Luke  12:  46;  Rom.  8:  17;  John 
14:  3);  to  have  no  part  with  him,  is  to  be 
forever  separated  from  all  that  is  capable  of 
satisfj-ing  the  soul.  This  threatening  word  of 
Christ,  revealing  to  Peter  the  possible  loss  of 
all  that  he  anticipated  and  longed  for  in  the 
kingdom  of  his  Master,  caused  an  instant  re- 
vulsion of  feeling. 

9.  Lord,  not  my  feet  only,  but  also  my 
hands  and  my  head.  That  is,  all  the  ex- 
posed parts  of  his  body.  The  reaction  of  feel- 
ing carries  Peter  too  far.  He  asks  for  some- 
thing that  Jesus  had  not  done  or  proposed  to 
do.  His  frank,  bold,  impulsive  nature  is  not 
easily  trained  to  obey  the  will  of  another.  But 
the  wisdom  and  love  of  Jesus  are  equal  to  the 
tusk  of  guiding  this  honest,  though  impulsive 
and  powerful  man. 

10.  He  that  is  Avashed  (rather,  bathed). 
It  may  mean  :  He  that  hath  bathed  himself, 
as  was  probably  true  of  the  disciples,  before 
coming  into  the  city  to  eat  the  Paschal  Sup- 
per. For  bathing  the  whole  body  was  cus- 
tomary in  preparing  for  special  religious  ser- 
vices. Needeth  not  save  to  Avash  his  feet, 
which  must  naturally  have  been  soiled  with 
dust  in  passing  through  the  streets  to  the 
house  where  they  had  met  to  eat  the  Paschal 
Supper.  Observe  that  the  word  translated 
bathe  (Aou'u)  is  different  from  the  one  translated 
wash  (viTTTo) ;  the  former  denoting  an  ablution 
of  the  whole  body,  and  the  latter  an  ablution  { 
of  a  part  of  the  body,  as  the  hands  or  the  feet. 
By  rendering  both  the  words  Avash,  the  Com- 
mon English  Version  has  obscured  the  mean- 
ing of  the  passage.  "A  symbolical  signifi- 
cance is  attached,  in  John  13  :  10,  to  washing 
the  feet,  as  compared  with  bathing  the  whole 
body,  the  former  being  partial  (kiVto)),  the  lat- 
ter complete  (\ovu) ;  the  former  oft-repeated 
in  the  course  of  the  daj^  the  latter  done  once 
for  all. "—(Smith's  "Diet,  of  the  Bible,"  Art., 


Washing   the    Hands    and    Feet.)      But    is 
clean   every  whit.     That  is,  in  his  entire 

body — a  statement  of  the  disciples'  case  at  the 
moment  when  these  words  were  spoken.  For 
having  bathed,  as  we  may  assume,  before 
coming  into  the  city,  they  needed  but  the 
washing  of  their  feet  to  be  virtually  clean. 
And  ye  are  clean — save  as  to  the  feet — but 
not  all.  This  is  added  with  reference  to  Ju- 
das ;  and,  no  doubt,  as  Meyer  says,  with  deep 
grief.  Moreover  it  shows  that  Jesus  is  not 
speaking  of  ritual  purity  merely,  but  also  of 
the  spiritual  state  which  it  represents.  For 
the  outward  symbolizes  the  inward;  and  in 
speaking  of  ceremonial  or  bodily  cleansing, 
he  thinks  of  the  purification  of  soul  which  it 
signifies.  With  one  awful  exception,  the  dis- 
ciples had  been  renewed  in  heart.  They  had 
passed  from  death  into  life.  They  had  been 
"saved  by  the  washing  (or,  bath)  of  regener- 
ation" (Titus3:a),  and  their  sins  had  been  for- 
given. But  they  were  not  yet  delivered  from 
all  evil.  It  was  still  necessary  for  them  to 
contend  with  sinful  inclinations,  and  to  mor- 
tify the  deeds  of  the  body.  (Rom.  s:  is.)  Every 
day  they  had  reason  to  offer  the  petition: 
"Forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  forgive  our 
debtors."  (Matt.  6:12.)  And  this  process  of 
daily  sanctification,  by  which  believers  are 
continued  in  fellowship  with  Christ,  is  here 
symbolized  by  washing  the  feet.  Says 
Godet:  "  Peter  is  clean,  for  he  has  sincerely 
believed  in  Christ.  What  Jesus  now  does 
with  him  has  not,  then,  for  its  end  to  reconcile 
him  with  God,  but,  by  the  example  of  humil- 
ity which  he  would  give  him,  to  remove  a  par- 
ticular stain  which  Jesus  observed  at  this  time 
in  his  own— the  desire  for  greatness  and  earthly 
dominion.  W^ith  this  vicious  tendency,  Pe- 
ter would  not  know  how  to  do  the  work  of 
God,  or  ever  to  have  place  at  the  table  of 
Christ.  Every  Christian  ought,  therefore,  to 
apply  this  saying  to  his  own  daily  purifica- 
tion from  the  evil  desires  whose  presence  he 
detects  in  his  heart.  The  word,  the  example, 
and  the  spirit  of  Jesus  are  the  means  of  this 
growing  purification,  which  is  a  necessary 
complement  of  the  initial  justification." 


270 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


11  For  "he  knew  who  should  betray  him;  therefore 
said  he,  Ye  are  not  all  clean. 

12  So  after  he  had  washed  their  feet,  and  had  taken 
his  garments,  and  was  set  down  again,  he  said  unto 
theiu.  Know  ye  what  I  have  done  to  you  ? 

13  *  Ye  call  me  Master  and  Lord :  and  ye  say  well ; 
for  so  I  am. 

14  <=l{  I  then,  yoMj-  Lord  and  Master,  have  washed 
your  feet;  '^ye  also  ought  to  wash  one  another's  feet. 

15  For  «I  have  given  you  an  example,  that  ye  should 
do  as  1  have  done  to  you. 


11  whit :  and  ye  are  clean,  but  not  all.  For  he  knew 
him  that  should  betray  him;  therefore  said  he.  Ye 
are  not  all  clean. 

12  So  when  he  had  washed  their  feet,  and  taken  his 
garments,  and  '  sat  down  again,  he  said  unto  them, 

13  Know  ye  what  I  have  done  to  you  ?  Ye  call  me 
2  Master,  and,  Lord:  and  ye  say  well;  for  so  I  am. 

14  If  I  then,  the  Lord  and  the  ^  Master,  have  washed 
your  feet,  ye  also  ought  to  wash  one  another's  feet. 

15  For  I  have  given  you  an  example,  that  ye  also  sh  >uld 


ch.  6:64....ft  Matt.  23  ;  8,  10;  Luke  6:  46;  1  Cor  8:6;  12:3;  12:  3;  Phil.  2:   11.... c  Luke  22  :  27.... d  Ri.ui.  12:  10;  Gal.  6:  i,  2; 
1  Pet.  5:5 e  Matt.  11:  29;  Phil.  2:5;  1  Pet.  2:  21 ;  1  John  2:  6. 1  Gr.  recLned 2  Or,  Teacher. 


11.  For    he   knew  who   should    betray 

him  (lit.,  him  that  teas  delivering  him  tq?)  ; 
therefore  said  he,  Ye  are  not  all  clean. 

Judas  had  already  agreed  with  the  chief 
priests  to  deliver  Jesus  up  to  them  for  a  cer- 
tain sum  of  money,  and  was  waiting  for  a 
safe  opportunity  to  fulfill  his  engagement.  It 
came  sooner  than  he  expected.  It  is  to  be 
observed  that  John  regards  him  as  one  who 
was  already  engaged  in  his  traitorous  under- 
taking. 

12-20.  Christ's   Application   of   this 
Symbolical  Lesson. 

12.  So  after  (or,  when  therefore)  he  had 
washed  their  feet,  and  had  taken  his 
(outer)  garments,  and  was  set  down  (re- 
clined) again,  he  said  nnto  them.  Notice 
tiie  enumeration  of  particulars,  every  one  of 
which  would  be  interesting  to  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved,  but  which  would  be  likely 
to  have  no  interest  to  one  who  was  not  present 
as  a  personal  friend  of  the  Lord.  The  several 
verbs,  had  washed,  had  taken,  had  re- 
clined, and  said,  are  in  the  same  Greek  tense, 
and  they  might  be  translated  (with  Davidson) 
"waslied,"'  "took,"'  "reclined,"  and  "said"; 
but  the  act  of  speaking  referred  to,  certainly 
followed  the  other  acts  named,  and,  therefore, 
the  sense  of  the  narrative  is  best  given  by 
translating  the  first  three  verbs  as  if  they 
were  in  the  pluperfect  tense,  and  the  last 
verb,  in  the  past,  or  aorist.  Know  ye  what 
I  have  done  to  you?  That  is,  the  true 
meaning  and  intent  of  what  I  have  done. 
This  question  is  asked  for  the  purpose  of  call- 
ing their  attention  to  what  he  is  about  to  say. 
For  Jesus  waits  for  no  answer,  but  proceeds 
at  once  to  speak  of  his  act  in  such  a  way  as  to 
reveal  its  deeper  sense.  And  no  teacher  ever 
availed  himself  more  skillfully  of  all  proper 
means  of  gaining  the  attention  of  his  hearers, 
than  did  Jesus  Christ.  "  He  that  hath  an  ear, 
let  him  hear."  "Take  heed  how  ye  hear." 
"Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,"  etc. 


13.  Ye  call  me  Master  (lit.,  the  Teacher) 
and  Lord  (or,  the  Lord),  and  ye  say  well ; 

for  so  I  am.  Though  Christ  was  "meek 
and  lowly  in  heart"  (Matt,  ii :  29),  having  no 
love  of  human  applause,  no  vain  desire  for 
the  glory  that  cometh  from  men,  he  never  re- 
proved any  one  for  ascribing  to  him  the 
highest,  even  divine,  wisdom  or  authority. 
(See  Matt.  16:  16,  17;  John  1:  50;  6:  69;  20: 
28;  21:  27.)  On  the  contrary,  for  the  truth's 
sake,  and  for  the  glory  of  the  Father,  whom 
he  represented,  he  sometimes  directed  the 
minds  of  his  disciples,  or  hearers,  to  his 
divine  prerogatives.  The  reference  which  he 
makes  in  this  place  to  his  Messiahship  adds 
greatly  to  the  force  of  his  example  and  ap- 
peal. 

14.  If  I  then,  (the  Lord  and  the  Teacher) 
havewashed  (or,  washed)  your  feet,  ye  also 
ought  to  wash  one  another's  feet.  That 
is  to  say,  in  similar  circumstances  and  for  like 
ends,  ye  ought  to  render  to  one  another  such  a 
service.  For  a  service  that  is  not  too  humble 
for  the  Lord  to  perform,  cannot  be  too  humble 
for  the  servant  to  perform.  Moreover,  it  is 
the  end  sought  by  an  act  of  service  which  de- 
termines the  moral  character  and  dignity  of 
that  act,  and  therefore  if  the  end  sought  by 
an  act  which  is  servile  in  form  and  appear- 
ance is  worthy  of  God,  the  act  itself  must  be 
noble  and  divine. 

15.  For  I  have  given  you  an  example, 
that  ye  should  do  as  I  have  done  to  you. 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Jesus  in- 
tends by  these  words  to  make  feet-washing  a 
Christian  ordinance,  like  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Had  this  been  his  purpose, 
the  other  Evangelists  would  have  been  almost 
certain  to  mention  the  Saviour's  act  of  wash- 
ing his  disciples'  feet  at  the  Paschal  Supper, 
and  there  would  have  been  some  traces  of  the 
practice  as  a  solemn  rite,  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  and  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  But 
there  is  no  mention  of  this  act  by  the  other 


Ch.  XIII.] 


JOHN. 


271 


16  ■■  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  The  servant  is  not 
greater  than  his  lord:  neither  he  that  is  sent  greater 
than  he  that  sent  him. 

17  'If  ye  know  these  things,  happy  are  ye  if  ye  do 
them. 


16  do  as  I  have  done  to  you.    Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  A  'servant  is  not  greater  than  his  lord;  neither 

17  -one  that  is  sent  greater  than  he  that  sent  him.    If  ye 
know  those  things,  blessed  are  ye  if  ye  do  them. 


a  Miitt.  U:  as;  Phil.  2;  5;  I  Pet.  2 :  21 ;  1  John  2:6 6  M.itt.  10  :  24;  Luke  6:  40;  ch.  15:  20. 1  Gr.  hondservant 2  Gr.  an  apoalle. 


Evangelists,  and  no  trace  of  such  a  rite  among 
Christians  of  the  apostolic  age.  The  refer- 
ence to  "washing  the  saint's  feet,"  in  1  Tim. 
5:  10,  is  to  an  act  of  hospitality,  and  not  to  an 
ecclesiastical  rite.  "To  abase  one's  self  in 
order  to  serve,  and  to  serve  in  order  to  save,  is 
the  moral  essence  of  the  act." — Godet.  "It 
is  the  inward  spirit  of  Christ,  not  the  mere 
outward  act,  that  is  an  example  for  us  to  fol- 
low; the  cleansing  love,  not  the  girded  gar- 
ment and  the  washing  of  feet,  that  is  our  pat- 
tern. For  the  spiritual  significance  of  this 
declaration,  see  ch.  17:  18;  1  John  3:  16."  — 
Abbott.  "The  unwillingness  to  perform  the 
act  of  feet-washing  had  been  on  the  side  of 
the  disciples  an  'example'  of  selfishness;  the 
action  of  Jesus  was  an  'example'  of  conde- 
scending love.  ...  It  is  clear  that  the  idea 
that  a  sacrament  is  instituted  here,  is  entirely 
out  of  the  question ;  nor,  furthermore,  is  the 
action  linked  with  a  promise."  —  Tholuck.  It 
may  also  be  added,  that  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper  are  expressly  represented  by 
the  Saviour  as  rites  to  be  observed  till  the  end 
of  the  gospel  age:  "Baptizing  them  .  .  .  . 
teaching  them  .  .  .  and  lo,  I  am  with  you 
ahvay,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world — or, 
until  the  end  of  the  age.''  (Matt.  28:  i»,  20.)  The 
commission  to  make  disciples,  and  baptize 
and  teach  them,  was  given  with  reference  to 
all  the  nations  and  to  the  whole  Christian 
period — till  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  to 
judge  the  world.  In  like  manner,  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  made  a  permanent  ordinance: 
"For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink 
this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death,  till  he 
come."  (iCor.ii:26.)  But  nothing  of  this  kind 
is  said  in  respect  to  feet-washing.  Besides,  it 
may  be  worthy  of  consideration,  that  immer- 
sion and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  natural  and 
self-interpreting  rites,  the  world  over;  while 
feet-washing  is  only  natural  and  necessary,  as 
a  frequent  act,  in  hot  climates,  and  with  such 
methods  of  clothing  the  feet  as  prevail  in 
such  climates. 

16.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  The 
servant  is  not  greater  than  his  lord, 
neither  he  that  is  sent  greater  than  he  that 


sent  him.  A  most  solemn  affirmation  of  the 
fact  that  they  ought  to  perform  the  humblest 
service  to  their  brethren,  if  by  so  doing  they 
can  promote  their  sanctification ;  for  such  a 
service  their  Lord  had  just  performed.  They 
were  to  be  his  apostles,  sent  forth  by  him  to 
preach  the  good  news  of  salvation,  and  direct 
men  in  the  way  of  life:  how  unnatural  and 
inconsistent  for  them  to  decline  such  a  service 
as  he  was  willing  to  render!  Yet  they  had, 
within  an  hour,  given  evidence  of  a  spirit 
which  would  lead  them  to  do  this.  They  had 
striven  together  as  to  who  should  be  greatest, 
and  were  not  yet  prepared  to  be  esteemed 
less  than  nothing  for  Christ's  sake. 

17.  If  ye  know  these  things,  happy 
(blessed)  are  ye  if  ye  do  them.  With  this 
saying  may  be  compared  the  words  of  Jesus, 
in  response  to  the  exclamation,  "Blessed  is 
the  womb  that  bare  thee,  and  the  paps  which 
thou  hast  sucked!"  "Yea,  rather,  blessed 
are  they  that  hear  the  word  of  God  and  keep 
it."  (Luke  11:27, 28.)  But  this  Saying,  which 
speaks  only  of  good,  has  a  tone  of  sorrow  in 
it.  For  had  not  the  disciples  been  unwilling 
to  do  these  things?  Could  they  fail  to  per- 
ceive that  the  love  which  their  Lord  had 
just  revealed  by  his  words  and  conduct  was 
wanting,  or  very  weak,  in  their  hearts?  Must 
not  his  assurance  of  blessedness,  in  case  they 
should  do  these  things,  have  awakened 
more  of  fear  than  of  hope,  at  that  moment? 
Perhaps  they  recalled  his  words  on  a  former 
occasion  :  "  Not  everj'  one  that  saith  unto  me. 
Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven;  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven  "  (Matt.  7:21),  or  his 
declaration  that  the  "servant  which  knew  his 
Lord's  will,  and  prepared  not  himself,  neither 
did  according  to  his  will,  shall  be  beaten 
with  many  stripes  "  (Luke  12: 47) ;  and  so,  were 
alarmed,  rather  than  comforted,  by  what  he 
now  said.  "  To  him  that  knoweth  to  do  good, 
and  doeth  it  not,  to  him  it  is  sin."  (James 4:  17.) 
There  are  some  who  hear  but  to  obey,  and 
they  are  blessed;  but  there  are  many  who 
hear  without  being  willing  to  obey,  and  their 
condemnation  is  just.     God's  pleasure  in  the 


272 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


18  I  speak  not  of  you  all:  I  know  whom  I  have 
chosen:  but  that  the  scripture  may  be  fulfilled,  "He 
that  eateth  bread  with  me  hath  lifted  up  his  heel 
against  me. 

19  »  Now  I  tell  you  before  it  come,  that,  when  it  is 
come  to  pass,  ye  may  believe  that  I  am  he. 


18  I  speak  not  of  you  all:  I  know  whom  I  ^have  cho- 
sen :  but  that  the  scripture  may  be  lultilled.  He  that 
eateth  2  my  bread,  lilted   up   his   heel   against  me. 

19  From  henceforth  I  tell  you  before  it  come  to  pass, 
that  when  it  is  come  to  pass,  ye  may  believe  that  I 


aPs.41r9;  Matt.  26:  '23;  ver.  21 &cb. 14:29;  16:4. 1  Or,  cAose..   .'2  Manv  ancient  authorities  read,  Ais  &rea(2  unCA  me. 


former  is  matched  by  his  displeasure  with  the 
latter.  From  the  blessedness  which  follows 
those  who  obey,  may  be  inferred  the  misery 
of  those  who  disobey.  And  these  results  of 
conduct  are  not  chiefly  rewards,  or  inflictions 
from  without,  having  no  natural  connection 
with  the  conduct  itself,  but  they  are  rather, 
for  the  most  part,  the  proper  fruits  of  that 
conduct,  flowing  out  of  the  moral  condition 
of  the  soul  as  unavoidably  as  the  qualities  of 
a  particular  fruit  flow  out  of  the  qualities  of 
the  seed  from  which  it  derives  its  life. 

18.  I  speak  not  of  you  all.  The  mind 
of  Jesus  turns  to  the  traitor,  and  he  feels 
keenly  his  presence.  But  these  words,  at  the 
same  time,  imply  his  confidence  that  the  rest 
of  the  disciples  would  prove,  on  the  whole, 
faithful.  He  knows  them  to  be  sincere,  and 
foresees  that,  though  they  may  be  weak,  and 
fail  "to  do  these  things,"  uniformly  they  de- 
sire and  endeavor  to  do  them.  But  he  also 
knows  that  one  of  the  twelve  is  radically'  and 
thoroughly  untrue  to  his  Master.  I  know 
whom  I  have  chosen  (rather,  chose\  The 
I  is  emphatic.  "Though  you  may  not  under- 
stand it,  I  for  my  i>art  know  whom  I  chose. 
And  Judas  is  one  of  them."  But— I  chose 
them,  Judas  included— that  the  scripture 
may  be  fulfilled,  He  that  eateth  bread 
Avith  me  hath  lifted  up  his  heel  against 
me.  (p«.  41:9.)  That  is,  Jesus  gave  to  Judas  a 
place  among  the  twelve  with  a  view  to  the  ful- 
fillment of  the  "determinate  counsel"  of 
God,  revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  The  charac- 
ter of  Judas  was  known  from  the  first;  and 
he  was  numbered  with  the  twelve — not,  how- 
ever, against  his  own  will,  or  for  the  purpose 
of  hardening  his  heart — but  because  God 
could  use  the  wickedness  of  a  hypocrite  and  a 
thief  in  accomplishing  a  holy  and  gracious 
work.  Christ  knew  that  he  must  die  ;  for  he 
came  into  the  world,  "not  to  be  ministered 
unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many."  He  knew,  also,  that  one 
of  his  professed  friends,  who  had  received 
from  him  nothing  but  good,  would  betray 
him.     He  therefore  chose  one  who  was  a  hyp- 


ocrite and  a  thief  to  be  an  apostle,  oflTering 
him  all  good,  and  never  tempting  him  to  evil ; 
but  aware  from  the  beginning  that  he  was  un- 
true in  his  professions  of  trust,  and  fit  for 
villainous  deeds,  like  that  of  delivering  up  his 
Master  to  those  who  were  seeking  his  life. 
(6:64.)  This  appears  to  be  the  most  natural 
meaning  of  the  language  here  used,  and  the 
course  of  action  which  it  ascribes  to  Jesus 
agrees  with  manj^  statements  of  Scripture  as 
to  the  use  which  God  sometimes  makes  of 
men  whose  hearts  are  bent  upon  evil.  (Ex.  7: -2-5; 

Isa.  10:  5-15;  Ps.  76:  10.) 

The  words.  He  that  eateth  bread  Avith 
with  me  hath  lifted  up  his  heel  against 

me,  are  quoted  from  Ps.  41 :  9,  in  which  Da- 
vid is  supposed  to  have  described  the  treachery 
of  Ahithophel,  or  of  some  other  pretended 
friend,  though  David's  experience  was  meant 
by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  tj'pical  of  the  ex- 
perience of  his  greater  Son,  Hence  Jesus 
quotes  but  a  part  of  the  verse,  namely,  that 
which  was,  in  a  pre-eminent  sense,  fulfilled  in 
his  own  experience;  while  he  omits  the  words: 
"Yea,  mine  own  familiar  friend,  in  whom  I 
trusted,"  because,  if  our  interpretation  is  cor- 
rect, those  were  not,  strictly'  speaking,  ful- 
filled in  his  own  experience,  since  Judas  was 
never  one  in  whom  he  irusted.  Bj'  quoting 
these  words  from  the  Forty-first  Psalm,  Jesus 
reveals  his  sense  of  the  baseness  and  treach- 
ery of  Judas,  in  the  course  he  was  taking. 
"Judas,  so  near  to  an  act  of  treason,  is  like 
him  who  has  already  lifted  up  his  heel  in  or- 
der to  kick  another." — Meyer. 

19.  Now  (rather,  from  henceforth)  I  tell 
you  before  it  come  (to  pass),  that,  when 
it  is  come  to  pass,  ye  may  believe  that  I 
am  he.  Thus  he  takes  every  proper  measure 
to  confirm  the  fitith  of  his  disciples  in  himself, 
as  being  all  that  he  had  claimed  to  be,  the  true 
i  Messiah^  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Light  of  the 
world.  By  calling  attention  to  his  reason  for 
predicting  the  treachery  of  one  of  his  own 
disciples,  he  made  it  more  certain  that  they 
would  recollect  this  prediction  when  it  was 
!  fulfilled,  and  see  in  it  fresh  evidence  that  he 


Ch.  XIII.] 


JOHN. 


273 


20  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  receivelli  [  20  am  he.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He 
whomsoever  I  seud  receivelh  me  ;  aud  he  tliatreceiveth  that  receiveth  whomsoever  I  send  nceiveth  me; 
me  receiveth  him  that  seut  me.  and  he  that  receiveth  me  receiveth  him  that  sent 

21  'When  Jesus  had  thus  said,  "^  he  was  troubled  in         me. 

spirit,  and  testified,  and  .said.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto    21      When  Jesus  had  thus  said,  he  was  troubled  in  the 
you,  that  "^  one  of  you  shall  betray  me.  |       spirit,  and  testified,  and  said,  Verily,  verily,  1  say 

a  Matt.  10:  40;  25:  40;  Luke  10:16 6  Matt.  26:  21 ;  Mai  k  14  :  18;  Luke  22  :  21 cch.  12;  27 d  Aetn  1 :  17  ;  I  John  2  :  IS). 


was  the  Messiah.  From  this  time,  is  the  only 
correct  reading  of  the  Greek  expression  (in-' 
apri)  here  used,  though  it  has  sometimes  been 
translated  in  this  place  now,  or  even  now.  It 
will  be  seen  that  he  repeated  the  prediction  a 
few  moments  later  (^er.  21),  thus  taking  away 
all  objection  to  the  view  that  the  expression 
which  he  employs  has  its  customary  sense  in 
this  verse. 

20.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  He 
that  receiveth  whomsoever  I  send,  re- 
ceiveth me;  and  he  that  receiveth  me, 
receiveth  him  that  sent  me.  The  connec- 
tion of  this  saying  with  what  precedes  is  not 
perfectly  obvious;  but  it  may  be  stated  as  fol- 
lows :  In  predicting  openly  the  crime  that  was 
soon  to  be  perpetrated  by  one  of  the  twelve, 
Jesus  had  in  mind  the  future  needs  of  his  dis- 
ciples, who  were  to  be  witnesses  for  hiiri  in  peril- 
ous circumstances,  first  among  the  Jews,  and 
then  among  the  Gentiles.  He  desired  to  lay 
the  foundations  of  their  faith  in  himself  as 
deeply  as  possible,  for  they  were  to  be  his 
representatives  in  teaching;  and,  if  his  repre- 
sentatives, then  the  representatives  of  his 
Father.  In  other  words,  Jesus  wishes  them 
to  have  strong  faith  in  him(ver.  19),  because 
they  are  to  be  his  ambassadors,  and  so  the  am- 
bassadors of  his  Fathi'r.  (ver.  20.)  The  mean- 
ing would  not  have  been  changed,  if  he  had 
said:  ''^For  verily,  verilj',  I  say  unto  you," 
etc.  This  appears  to  me  a  better  view  of  the 
connection  than  that  proposed  by  Lticke,  viz.: 
"Jesus  wishes  to  encourage  his  disciples,  who 
were  disheartened,  either  by  the  thought  of 
treachery  originating  among  themselves,  or 
yet  more,  perhaps,  by  the  prospect  of  their 
Master's  departure  from  them  (comp.  14:  1); 
and  he  does  this  by  setting  before  their  minds 
in  whose  name  and  with  what  dignity  they 
were  to  be  sent  out.  (Comp.  Matt.  10:  40-42; 
Luke  9:  48.)"  Equally  unsatisfactory  is  that 
of  Godet:  "If  we  consider  verses  18  and  19 
to  be  a  simple  parenthesis,  occasioned  by  the 
contrast  between  the  lot  of  Judas  and  the 
blessedness  of  the  faithful  disciples  (ver.  17),  we 
cannot  easily-  doubt  that  a  prominent  trait  of 


this  blessedness  is  promised,  in  verse  17,  to  the 
disciple  who  is  humble  and  devoted,  like  his 
Master.  Jesus  had  said  :  '  The  servant  is  not 
greater  than  his  lord' ;  he  now  seems  to  say  r 
'  The  servant  is  not  inferior  in  greatness  to  his 
Master.'  To  receive  him,  is  to  receive  Jesus, 
and  the  Lord  himself.  (Comp.  Matt.  18: 
4,  5.)"  Alford  presents  yet  another  view  of 
the  connection:  "I  believe  that  the  saying 
sets  forth  ithe  dignity  of  that  office  from  which 
Judas  was  about  to  fall — q.  d.,  'not  only  was 
he  in  close  intercourse  with  me  (ver.  is),  but  in- 
vested with  an  ambassadorship  for  me,  and  in 
me,  for  the  Father;  and  yet  he  will  lift  up 
his  heel  against  me.'  "  But  this,  again,  is  less 
natural  and  forcible,  after  verse  19,  than  the 
connection  first  stated. 

21-30.  Announcement  of  His  Betray- 
al BY  JlTDAS. 

21.  When  Jesus  had  thus  said,  he  was 
troubled  in  (the)  spirit.  These  words  im- 
ply a  sudden  accession  of  sorrow,  a  great  dis- 
turbance of  soul,  as  his  mind  turned  again  to 
the  faithless  one  who  was  about  to  betray  him. 
The  human  nature  of  Jesus  was  subject  to 
agitation,  conflict,  and  grief;  for  it  was  a  real 
human  nature— one  that  made  him  liable  to 
temptation.  The  sight  of  Judas,  unmoved  by 
his  act  of  condescending  love,  the  washing 
the  disciples'  feet;  unmoved  bj'  his  reference 
to  the  betrayal,  in  verse  18;  and  wearing  still 
a  mask  of  hypocrisy  which  deceived  his  fel- 
low disciples,  filled  the  spirit  of  Jesus  with 
grief  and  indignation.  And  testified,  and 
said,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that 
one  of  you  shall  betray  me.  On  these 
words,  Lange  remarks:  "The  inmost  life  of 
his  human  spirit  was  invaded  by  horror  at  the 
unprecedented  fact  of  his  approaching  and 
imminent  betrayal;  the  sight  of  the  crafty 
one,  and  of  his  connection  with  the  circle  of 
disciples  .  .  .  tempted  him  to  despise  the 
whole  race  of  mankind  (?),  and  tended  to 
produce  in  him  an  exasperation  of  spirit 
which  he  must  summon  all  his  energies  to  re- 
sist." It  may  be  doubted  whether  just  this  is 
suggested    by   the  expression,    troubled  in 


274 


JOHIs. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


22  Then  the  disciples  looked  one  on  another,  doubt- 
ing of  whom  he  spake. 

23  Now  o  there  was  leaning  on  Jesus'  bosom  one  of 
his  disciples,  whom  Jesus  loved. 

24  Simon  Peter  therefore  beckoned  to  him,  that  he 
should  ask  who  it  should  be  of  wliom  he  spake. 

25  He  then  lying  on  Jesus'  breast  sailh  unto  him, 
Lord,  who  is  if! 


22  unto  you,  that  one  of  you  shall  betray  me.     The 
disciples  looked  one  on  another,  doubting  of  whom 

23  he  spake.    Tliere  was  at  the  table  reclining  in  Jesus' 

24  bosom  one  of  his  di.-ciides,  whom  Jesus  loved.    Si- 
mon Peter  therefore  beckoneth  to  him,  and  saith  un- 

25  to  him,  Tell  us  who  it  is  of  whom  he  speaketh.    He 
leaning  back,  as  be  was,  on  Jesus'  breast  saith  unto 


a  ch.  19  :  26;  M  :  2  ;  21 :  7,  20.  24. 


spirit.  The  feeling  of  Jesus  was  probably 
one  of  mingled  indignation  and  sorrow;  and 
the  moment  had  now  come  when  he  could 
properly  reveal  tlie  cause  of  that  feeling,  as 
well  as  the  feeling  itself.  By  the  order  of 
words  in  the  Greek,  the  emphasis  falls  on  one 
of  you,  rather  than  on  shall  betray  me. 
It  was  the  circumstance  that  one  of  his  own 
followers,  v/ho  had  so  often  eaten  with  him, 
and  listened  to  his  words  of  love,  was  to  de- 
liver him  up,  that  made  his  sorrow  so  deep. 

22.  Omit  then,  and  read:  The  disciples 
looked  (or,  were  looking)  one  on  another, 
doubting  of  whom  he  spake.  This,  again, 
is  one  of  the  graphic  touches  which  distin- 
guish the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  prove  that  it 
was  written  by  a  most  sensitive  and  apprecia- 
tive eye-witness.  According  to  Matthew,  the 
disciples  "  were  exceeding  sorrj-,  and  began 
each  one  of  them  to  say  unto  him,  Lord,  is 
it  I?";  according  to  Mark,  "they  began  to 
he  sorry,  and  to  say  unto  him,  one  by  one,  Is 
it  I?";  and  according  to  Luke,  "they  began 
to  inquire  among  themselves  which  of  them  it 
might  be  that  was  about  to  do  this  thing." 

(Matt.  26:  22;   Mark  14:    19;    Luke  22:  2.1.  Davidson's  Transl.) 

But  John  remembers  the  look  of  surprise,  of 
doubt,  and  of  painful  inquiry',  with  which 
the  disciples  turned  one  to  another.  The 
expression  which  was  seen  in  their  counte- 
nances was  more  significant  to  him  than  any 
words  which  tliey  addressed  to  one  another, 
or  to  Jesus.  Yet  he  deems  it  proper  to  men- 
tion Peter's  special  appeal  to  himself,  and  the 
manner  in  whi(;h  Christ  answered  the  ques- 
tion which  was  asked  in  response  to  that  ap- 
peal. 

23.  Omit  now,  and  read:  There  was  {at 
the  table)  leaning  on  Jesus'  bosom  one  of 
his  disciples,  whom  Jesus  loved.  "The 
custom  was  to  lie  with  the  left  arm  supported 
on  the  cushion,  and  the  feet  stretched  out  be- 
hind, so  that  the  right  hand  remained  free  for 
eating.  The  one  who  lay  next,  reached,  with 
the  back  of  his  head,  to  the  sinus  of  the  girdle 
of  tbeifirst,  and  had  the  feet  of  the  first  at  his 


back;  in  like  manner,  the  third  in  the  bosom 
of  the  second."  —Meye):  The  pronoun  whom 
refers  only  to  the  one  who  was  reclining  in 
Jesus'  bosom,  and  the  clause  denotes  that  this 
disciple  was  loved  by  the  Saviour  with  a  spe- 
cial love.  The  repetition  of  the  word  Jesus, 
in  this  clause,  is  singularly  natural  and  ex- 
pressive, showing  how  the  grateful  disciple 
appreciates  the  personal  affection  of  his  Mas- 
ter, and  loves  to  repeat  his  name  in  speaking 
of  his  affection.  It  is  not  the  fact  that  he  is 
loved,  but  the  fact  that  ha  is  loved  by  Jesus, 
which  fills  the  heart  of  the  Evangelist  with  a 
joy  and  gratitude  that,  with  all  his  modest}',  he 
canncjt  repress.  He  is  constrained  to  say,  with- 
out mentioning  his  own  name,  that  there  is  a 
disciple  who  will  wonder  and  rejoice  forever 
that  he  was  loved  b}'  Jesus  with  a  great  and  spe- 
cial love;  and  this  disciple  was  reclining  in 
the  bosom  of  Jesus  when  the  latter  said  :  "One 
of  you  shall  betray  me." 

24.  Simon  Peter  therefore  beckoned, 
etc.  (Better,  as  in  Kev.  Ver.,  beckoneth  to  him, 
and  saith  unto  hitn,  Tell  who  it  is  of  whom  he 
speaketh).  That  is,  tell  us  who  it  is,  etc.  "Pe- 
ter was  unable  to  restrain  his  sorrow  and  im- 
patience. Eager  to  know  and  to  prevent  the 
treachery — unseen  bj'  Jesus,  whose  back  was 
turned  to  him  as  he  reclined  at  the  meal — he 
made  a  signal  to  John  to  ask  'who  it  was.'  " 
— Farrar.  According  to  the  best  authorized 
reading,  Peter  expected  that  John  could  tell 
him  which  of  the  disciples  was  meant,  either 
because  he  supposed  that  Jesus  had  alreadj- 
pointed  out  the  person  to  the  disciple  whom 
he  loved,  or  because  he  supposed  that  Jesus 
would  do  this  privately  at  John's  request.  Bj' 
beckoning  to  John,  Peter  gains  his  attention, 
and  is  able  to  address  him  in  a  whisper. 

25.  He  then  lying,  etc.,  (or,  he  leatiing 
hack  thus,  or,  as  he  v-as)  on  Jesus'  breast, 
saith  unto  him.  Lord,  Avho  is  it?  The 
first  clause  presents  a  very  exact  picture  of  the 
scene.  John,  leaning  his  head  backward  so  as 
to  touch  the  breast  of  Jesus,  is  able,  unobserved 
by  others  except  Peter,  to  whisper  in  his  ear 


Ch.  XIIL] 


JOHN. 


275 


26  Jesus  answered,  He  it  is,  to  whom  I  shall  Rive  a 
sop,  when  I  have  dipped  it.  And  when  he  had  dipped 
the  sop,  he  gave  it  to  Judas  Iscariot,  t,h«  son  of  Siniou. 

27  "  And  attgr  the  sop  Satau  entered  into  him.  Then 
said  Jesus  unto  him,  That  thou  doest,  do  quickly. 


26  him,  Lord,  who  is  it?  Jesus  therefore  answereth, 
He  it  is,  for  whom  I  shall  dip  the  soj),  and  give  it 
him.    So  when  he  had  dijjped  the  sop,  he  taketh  and 

27  giveth  it  to  Judas,  the  sun  of  Simon  Iscariot.  And 
after  the  sop,  then  entered  Satan  into  him.  Jesus 
therefore  saith  unto  him,  That  thou  doest,  do  quick- 


a  Luke  22 : 3 ;  ch.  6 :  70. 


the  question  whicli  had  been  asked  by  his  fel- 
low disciple.  With  some  of  the  best  editors, 
I  have  recognized  an  adverb,  meaning  thus, 
as  belonging  to  the  text  after  the  words  lean- 
ing back.  For  though  the  manuscripts  and 
versions  are  nearly  equally  divided  in  respect 
to  it,  the  omission  of  this  adverb  by  a  copyist 
is  more  easily  accounted  for  than  its  inser- 
tion. Its  effect  on  the  sense  is  only  to  hold 
the  attention  a  little  longer  on  the  scene  as  it 
was  present  to  the  mind  of  the  writer.  Lean- 
ing back  THUS — i.  e.,  as  he  was,  in  a  reclining 
posture,  and  as  he  would  naturally  do,  being 
in  such  a  posture.  A  copyist  would  not  per- 
ceive that  anything  was  lacking  to  the  sense, 
if  he  accidentally  omitted  this  word  ;  and  the 
same  fact  would  make  it  improbable  that  he 
supplied  it  by  a  natural  law  of  mental  action. 
It  is  a  word  that  might  be  added  by  an  eye- 
witness of  the  scene  (comp.  4:  6),  but  by  no 
other.  I  am,  therefore,  persuaded  that  it  is 
genuine,  and  that  it  affords  another  evidence 
of  the  apostolic  origin  of  this  Gospel. 

26.  Jesus  answered,  etc.  The  Rev.  Ver. 
is  better :  Jesus  therefore  answereth,  He  it  is 
for  whom  I  shall  dip  the  sop,  and  give  it  to 
him.  Both  the  question  of  John  and  the  an- 
swer of  Jesus  were  probably  uttered  in  a  low 
voice,  not  distinctly  heard  by  the  other  disci- 
ples. The  sop  was  a  morsel,  or  small  piece  of 
bread,  probably  of  the  thin,  flexible,  unleav- 
ened loaf  eaten  at  the  Passover.  Westcott 
says:  "  It  is  an  Eastern  custom,  at  present,  for 
the  host  to  give  a  small  ball  of  meat  to  the 
guest  whom  he  wishes  to  honor.  The  refer- 
ence here  may  be  to  this  custom."  But  there 
is  little  reason  to  suppose  that  Jesus  meant  to 
put  any  special  honor  on  Judas.  The  most 
that  can  be  said  in  this  direction  is,  that  his 
act  wa.s  friendly,  making  one  more  appeal  to 
the  traitor's  heart.  It  was  an  act  of  "sorrow- 
ful good  will." — Meyer.  The  translation  given 
in  the  Revised  Version  is  made  from  the  best 
authorized  text,  which  differs  slightly  from 
that  on  which  the  Common  Version  is  based. 
And  (so)  when  he  had  dipped  the  sop,  he 
gave  it  (taketh  and  giveth  it)  to  Judas,  the 


son  of  Simon  {Iscariot).  From  this  lan- 
guage, it  may  be  inferred  that  Judas  was  re- 
clining so  near  iiis  Master  that,  without  rising 
or  leaving  his  place,  he  could  receive  the  mor- 
sel directly  from  the  Saviour's  hand;  but  it 
does  not  follow  that  he  must  have  been  next 
to  Jesus  on  the  left.  That,  which  would  have 
been  the  place  of  honor,  as  related  to  Jesus 
the  Master,  was  probably  filled  by  Peter- 
"Jesus  first  declares  that  one  of  the  twelve 
shall  betray  him.  (Ver.  21;  comp.  Matt.  26: 
21;  Luke  22:  21;  Mark  14:  18.)  They,  in 
amazement,  inquire  :    'Lord,  is  it  I?  is  it  I?' 

(Matt.  26:22;  Mark  14:  18;  Luke  22:  23),   and  Peter  makeS 

a  sign  to  John,  leaning  on  Jesus'  bosom,  that  he 
should  ask  who  it  was.  (ver.  24.)  John  does  so  ; 
and  Jesus  gives  him  privately  a  sign  by  which 
he  may  know  the  traitor,  viz.:  the  sop.  (ver. 
25, 26.)  The  amazement  and  inquiry  still  con- 
tinuing, Jesus  gives  the  sop  to  Judas  (ver.  26); 
who,  then  conscience-smitten,  but  desiring  to 
conceal  his  confusion,  asks,  as  the  others  had 
done:  'Lord,  is  it  I?'  (Matt. 26:25.)  Jesus  an- 
swers him  (Matt.  26:25;  John  13: 27),  and  he  imme- 
diately goes  out." — (Robinson's  "  Harmony," 
§135.)  We  have  inserted  in  parentheses  the 
references  not  given  by  Robinson. 

27.  And  after  the  sop  Satan  entered 
into  him.  That  is,  after  Jesus  had  given 
him  the  morsel,  his  spirit,  under  the  influence 
of  Satan,  was  turned  against  the  Lord  with  a 
flnal  and  unalterable  purpose  to  deliver  him 
up.  But  this  was  not  an  instance  of  demoniacal 
possession.  Judas  was  as  free,  and  as  truly 
responsible,  as  ever.  Then  said  Jesus  (or, 
Jesus  therefore  saith)  unto  him.  That  (or, 
what)thoii  doest,  do  ignore)  quickly.  There- 
fore, namely,  because  of  Satan's  entering  into 
him,  and  of  his  purpose  to  go  on  in  the  work 
of  betrayal.  Perceiving  this,  Jesus  saith  unto 
him.  That  thou  doest— i.  e.,  "What  thou  art 
doing  already,  in  spirit  and  purpose";  for,  in 
the  deepest  sense,  Judas  was  now  engaged  in 
betraying  his  Master.  More  quickly,  or, 
quicker,  may  be  understood  as  a  comparative 
adverb,  meaning  "more  quickly  than  thou 
art  planning  to  do  it";  for  Judas  was  "linger- 


276 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


28  Now  no  man  at  the  table  knew  for  what  intent  he 
spake  this  unto  him. 

29  P'or  some  o/  Ihem  thought,  because  "  Judas  had  the 
bag,  tliat  Jesus  had  said  unlo  him,  Buy  th/tse  things  that 
we  have  need  of  against  the  feast;  or, that  he  should 
give  something  to  the  poor. 

30  He  then,  having  received  the  sop,  went  imme- 
diately out;  and  it  was  night. 

31  Therefore,  when  he  was  gone  out,  Jesus  said.  '  Now 
is  the  Son  of  man  glorified,  and  =God  is  glorified  in 
him. 


28  ly.    Now  no  man  at  the  table  knew  for  what  intent 

29  he  spake  this  unto  him.  For  some  thought,  because 
Judas  had  the  'bag,  that  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Buy 
what  things  we  have  need  of  for  the  least;  or,  that 

30  he  should  give  something  to  the  poor.  He  then  hav- 
ing received  the  sop  went  out  straightway:  audit 
was  night. 

31  When  therefore  he  was  gone  out,  Jesus  saitb. 
Now  2  is  the  Son   of  man    glorified,  and  God  ^is 


ocb.  12:  6 6  oh.  12:  23 c  ch.  14:  13;  1  Pet.  4:  11. 1  Or,  box 2  Or,  i 


ing,  and  pretending  (Matt.  26:25)  to  share  in  the 
general  doubt." — Alford. 

The  command  is,  not  to  do  a  deed  about 
which  Judas  hesitated,  but  to  do,  in  a  certain 
way,  a  deed  which  was  fully  resolved  upon 
by  the  traitor.  Jesus  knew  that  delay  was 
useless — that  his  hour  was  come ;  and  he 
now  wished  to  be  alone  with  his  true  disci- 
ples. Hence  it  appears  that  he  was  Lord  over 
t\\Q  mayiner  of  his  betrayal  and  death. 

28.  Now  no  man  at  the  table  knew  for 
what  intent  he  spake  this  unto  him. 
The  Evangelist  includes  himself  in  this  re- 
mark. And  it  is  no  way  surprising  that  neither 
he  nor  any  of  his  fellow  disciples  suspected 
the.  mission  on  which  Judas  was  sent.  How 
could  they  imagine  that  Jesus  should  hasten 
a  tniitor  in  his  work?  But  Judas  understood 
the  meaning  of  Christ's  language,  for  his  soul 
was  full  of  the  dark  purpose  referred  to. 

29.  For  some  of  them  thought,  be- 
cause Judas  had  the  bag,  that  Jesus  had 
said  unto  him.  Buy  those  things  that  we 
have  need  of  against  (or,  for)  the  feast ; 
or,  that  he  should  give  something  to  the 
poor.  The  word  for  is  used  because  the 
actual  thoughts  of  some  show  that  they,  at 
least,  did  not  know  what  Jesus  had  in  view 
when  he  said:  "What  thou  doest,  do  (more) 
quickly."  The  words,  Buy  those  things 
that  we  have  need  of  against  (or,  for) 
the  feast,  have  been  supposed  to  prove  that 
the  meal  which  they  were  now  observing  was 
not  the  Paschal  Supper,  or,  if  it  was,  that  the 
regular  time  of  eating  it  was  anticipated  by 
Jesus.  But  in  reply  to  this.  Dr.  Robinson  re- 
marks: "Tlie  disciples  thought  that  Judas 
was  to  buy  the  things  necessarj'  for  the  festi- 
val on  the  fifteenth  and  following  days.  If 
now  our  Lord's  words  were  spoken  on  the 
evening  preceding  and  introducing  the 
fifteenth  of  Nisan,  they  were  appropriate; 
for  some  haste  was  necessary,  since  it  was 
already  quite  late  to  make  purchases  for  the 


next  day.  But  if  they  were  uttered  on 
the  evening  preceding  and  introducing  the 
fourteenth  of  Nisan,  they  were  not  thus  ap- 
propriate ;  for  then  a  whole  day  was  yet  to 
intervene  before  the  festival." 

30.  He  then  having  received  the  sop, 
went  immediately  out :  and  it  was  night. 
One  cannot  help  feeling  that  the  Evangelist 
added  the  last  clause,  partly  at  least,  because 
of  the  harmony  between  the  darkness  without 
and  the  person  who  went  forth  into  it.  "This 
concbision  of  the  narrative  respecting  Judas 
presents,  unsought,  something /«W  of  horror, 
and  precisely  in  this  simplest  brevity  of  ex- 
pression something  that  profoundly  lays  hold 
of  the  imagination." — Meyer.  The  words  of 
Christ  after  Judas  had  gone  out  may  be  said 
to  form  three  groups:  (1)  His  words  to  the 
eleven  in  the  upper  room  (i3:3i;  u:3i;)  (2)  His 
words  to  them  on  the  way  to  Gethsemane 
(15-16;)  and  (3)  His  words  of  prayer  to  the 
Father  for  himself  and  his  flock,   (i"-) 

13:  31—14:  31.  His  Words  to  the 
Elkven    in    the  Upper  Room. 

31.  Therefore  when  he  Avas  gone  out. 
Davidson  translates  this  clause:  "When 
therefore  he  went  out"  ;  but  this  translation 
introduces  a  Greek  idiom  into  a  language  to 
which  it  is  foreign.  "Had  gone  out"  is  the 
proper  English  equivalent  for  the  Greek  ex- 
pression. Jesus  said,  Now  is  the  Son  of 
man  glorified.  By  sending  forth  Judas  to 
his  traitorous  work,  Jesus  consented  afresh  to 
encounter  the  awful  death  by  which  he  was 
to  be  glorified;  he  made  this  death  a  certain, 
and,  as  it  were,  an  accomplished  fact.  And 
it  was  by  this  death  that  the  perfect  moral 
excellence  of  his  character  and  mission  was 
to  be  revealed.  And  God  is  glorified  in 
him.  In  and  by  the  Son  of  man,  becoming 
obedient  unto  death,  was  also  revealed  the 
love,  the  holiness — indeed,  the  entire  moral 
perfection  of  God.  And  this  truth  the  Son 
of  man   declares  in  the  plainest  terms.     As 


AM 


Ch.  XIIL] 


JOHN. 


277 


32  »  If  God  be  glorified  in  him,  God  shall  also  glorify 
him  in  himself,  and  'shall  straightway  glorify  him. 

33  Little  childen,  yet  a  little  while  I  am  with  you. 
Ye  shall  seek  me;  ■:  and  as  I  said  unto  the  Jews, 
Whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come;  so  now  I  say  to  you. 

3-t  A  ■*  new  commandment  I  give  unto  you.  That  ye 
love  one  another ;  as  1  have  loved  you,  that  ye  also  love 
one  another. 


32  glorified  in  him ;  and  God  shall  glorify  him  in 
himself,    and    straightway    slial!    he    gl(jrity    him. 

33  Little  children,  yet  a  little  while  1  am  with  you. 
Ye  shall  seek  me:  and  as  I  said  unto  the  .lews, 
Whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come;   so  now  I  say  unto 

34  you.  A  new  commandment  I  give  unto  you,  that 
ye  love  one  another;   'even  as  I  have  loved  you, 


och.  17:  1,  4,  5,6 5  ch.  12:  23 c  oh.  7  :  34 ;  8 :  21 d  Lev.  19:  18;  ch.  15;  12,  17:  Eph.  5:2;  1  Thess.  4:9;  James?:  8;  1  Pet.  1;  22; 

1  John  2  :  7,  8;  3:  11,  23;  4:  21. 1  Or,  even  as  I  loved  you,  that  ye  al&o  may  love  one  another. 


death  drew  near,  the  reason  for  it  filled  his 
soul  with  light  and  strength. 

33.  If  God  be  glorified  in  him,  God 
shall  also  glorify  him  in  himself,  and 
shall  straightway  glorify  him.  The  first 
clause  of  this  verse  is  wanting  in  most  of  the 
very  early  manuscripts,  and  may,  therefore, 
be  no  part  of  tlie  inspired  text.  But,  whether 
it  be  retained  or  omitted,  the  meaning  of  the 
verse  is  the  same.  Westcott  (after  Lachmann 
and  Tregelles)  omits  this  clause  and  gives  the 
following  as  "a  literal  rendering"  of  the 
Saviour's  words  in  verses  31  and  32:  "Now 
was  glorified  the  Son  of  man.  And  God  was 
glorified  in  him:  And  God  shall  glorify  him 
in  himself.  And  straightway  shall  he  glorify 
him."  And  he  thus  expounds  the  thought: 
"  Even  as  God  was  glorified  in  the  Son  of 
man,  as  man,  when  he  took  to  himself  will- 
ingly the  death  which  the  traitor  was  prepar- 
ing, so  also  it  followed  that  God  would  glorify 
the  Son  of  man  in  his  own  divine  being,  by 
taking  up  his  glorified  humanity  to  fellowship 
with  himself."   (Aots7:55.) 

Having  spoken  of  his  death  as  it  was  to  af- 
fect himself,  he  next  refers  to  the  same  event 
as  it  must  affect  his  disciples.  Notes  of 
triumph  are  quickly  followed  by  notes  of  sad- 
ness,'which  are  at  the  same  time  notes  of  love. 

33.  Little  children.  A  form  of  address 
peculiarly  tender  and  affectionate,  found 
nowhere  else  in  the  Gospels — and  now,  per- 
haps used  for  the  first  time  by  the  Saviour. 
John  employ's  the  designation  frequently  in 

his  FirstEpistle,   e.  p^.(2:l,12,18,28;3:7,lS;4:4;5:21,) 

and  it  is  possible  that  the  memory  of  this 
scene  endeared  the  word  to  his  heart.  Yet  it 
is  a  very  appropriate  word,  in  perfect  accord 
with  the  theology  of  John  ;  for  by  derivation 
it  points  to  a  vital  or  spiritual  sonship  rather 
than  to  legal  adoption.  Yet  a  little  while  I 
am  with  you.  As  if  he  had  said  :  "Only  a 
little  while  am  I  with  you,"  the  moment  of 
separation  is  at  hand.  Ye  shall  seek  me — 
referring  to  their  desire  for  personal   union 


and  communion  with  him — a  desire  which 
seems  to  have  remained  in  their  hearts  to  the 
end  of  life,  and  to  have  given  a  remarkable 
glow  to  their  language  in  respect  to  his  future 
appearing.  And  as  I  said  unto  the  Jews, 
Whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come — see  8:  21, 
and  compare  also  7  :  34 — so  now  I  say  to  you. 
For  the  departure  of  Christ  would  separate 
him  temporarily  from  his  disciples,  as  it 
would  separate  him  eternally  (7:34)  from  his 
foes.  In  going  to  his  Father,  through  the 
dreadful  pathway  of  death,  he  would  enter 
upon  a  life  distinct  from  the  present,  and  inac- 
cessible to  "his  own"  in  their  earthly  state. 
In  view  of  this  impending  separation,  he  pro- 
ceeds to  enjoin  upon  them  love  to  one  another, 
making  his  own  love  to  them  the  example  and 
motive  and  standard  of  that  love. 

34.  A  new  commandment  I  give  unto 
you.  That  ye  love  one  another;  as  I  have 
loved  you,  that  ye  also  love  one  another. 

Lange,  with  whom  Schaff  seems  to  agree,  holds 
that  the  new  commandment  here  spoken  of 
was  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Accordingly,  he  translates  the  verse  as  fol- 
lows: "A  new  commandment  give  I  unto 
you,  in  order  that  ye  may  love  one  another — 
even  as  I  loved  you,  in  order  that  ye  maj'  love 
one  another."  If  this  were  a  correct  inter- 
pretation, it  would  follow  that  the  object  for 
which  the  Lord's  Supper  was  established  was 
to  increase  brotherl3'  love  among  Christians. 
A  noble  object,  indeed,  but  one  that  is  no- 
where else  declared  to  be  the  purpose  of  this 
ordinance.  Besides,  it  will  be  remembered 
that  John  (2:  si  speaks  of  a  "new  command- 
ment," having  in  mind,  probablj',  this  saying 
of  Christ,  but  without  alluding  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  at  all.  And  still  further,  it  will  be  felt 
hj  every  reader  that,  if  the  words,  a  new 
commandment,  in  our  passage,  refer  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  the  reference  is  exceedingly 
obscure.  This  interpretation  must,  therefore, 
be  rejected.  But  if  the  new  commandment 
is  explained  by  the  following  vvords,  that  ye 


278 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIIL 


35  "By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  dis- 
ciples, if  ye  have  love  one  to  another. 

36  Simon  Peter  said  unto  hiiu,  Lord,  whither  goest 
thou  ?  Jesus  answered  him,  Whither  1  go,  thou  canst 
not  follow  me  now;  but 'thou  shalt  follow  me  after- 
wards. 

37  Peter  said  unto  him,  Lord,  why  cannot  I  follow 
thee  now  ?    I  will "  lay  down  my  life  for  thy  sake. 


35  that  ye  also  love  one  another.  By  this  shall  all 
men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye  have  love 
one  to  unother. 

36  Simon  Peter  saith  unto  him.  Lord,  whither  goest 
thou?  Jesus  answered.  Whither  1  go,  thou  canst  not 
follow  me  now  ;   but  thou  shalt  follow  afterwards. 

37  Peter  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  why  cannot  I  follow 
thee  even  uow?    I  will  lay  down  my  life  for  thee. 


olJolm2:  5;  4:  20....5ch.  21:  18;  2  Pet.  1:  14.  ...c  Matt.  26:  33,  34,35;  Mark  14 :  29,  30,  31;  Luke  22:  33,  34. 


love  one  another,  why  is  it  called  a  new 
commandment  ?  Is  it  not  simply  the  old  com- 
mandment: "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself?"  (Levit. i9:  is;  Lukeio:  27.)  We  think 
not.  It  is  rather  a  command  to  love  those 
wlio  are  in  Christ,  because  they  are  in  him, 
and  with  a  love  which  springs  from  devotion 
to  him.  As  the  Saviour  himself  had  a  love 
for  "his  own,"  distinguishable  from  his  love 
to  the  ungodly,  so  "his  own"  should  have  a 
love  for  one  another  distinguishable  from  their 
love  to  mankind  in  general.  It  is  a  love  ren- 
dered peculiar  by  a  sense  of  union  in  Christ, 
and  of  supreme  devotion  to  his  will. 

35.  By  this  (or,  in  this)  shall  all  men 
know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye  have 
love  one  to  another.  This  prediction  was 
signally  fulfilled  in  the  early  church.  Noth- 
ing was  more  surprising  to  the  heathen  world, 
in  the  second  century,  than  the  love  of  Chris- 
tians to  one  another.  "Behold,  they  say,  how 
they  love  one  another!  For  they  themselves 
hate  one  another;  and  how  they  are  ready  to 
die  for  each  other!  because  they  themselves 
are  more  ready  to  kill  each  other.  And  they 
defame  us  because  we  call  each  other  brethren, 
for  no  other  reason,  I  suppose,  than  this:  that 
among  themselves  every  expression  of  kin- 
ship is  merely  feigned.  Yet  we  also  call 
you  brethren,  in  virtue  of  the  nature  which 
is  our  one  mother,  though  ye  are  scarcely 
men,  because  ye  are  evil  brethren.  But 
how  much  more  worthily  are  they  called 
and  considered  brethren  who  recognize  one 
Father,  God,  who  have  received  the  one  Spirit 
of  holiness,  and  who  have  awaked  from  one 
womb  of  the  same  darkness  into  one  light  of 
truth  !  "—(Tertullian,  "ApoL,"  c.  39.)  The 
last  clause  might  be  translated  more  literally, 
and  perhaps  more  exactly,  thus :  If  ye  have 
love  among  one  another,  or,  if  among  one 
another  ye  have  love — the  reference  being  to 
the  love  which  they  have  within  the  limits  of 
Christian  brotherhood,  or  of  those  who  are 
servants  of  Christ. 

36.  Simon  Peter  said  (saith)  unto  him, 


Lord,  whither  goest  thon  ?  Peter  was 
more  deeply  moved  by  the  Saviour's  assertion, 
that  he  was  about  to  leave  them,  going  where 
they  could  not  come,  than  he  was  by  the 
"new  commandment,"  or  by  the  eifect  which 
obedience  to  that  commandment  would  have 
upon  mankind.  His  love  was  now  so  warm, 
and  his  ardor  so  kindled,  that  he  was  pre- 
paring to  deny  the  existence  of  any  obsta- 
cle that  he  would  not  surmount  in  following 
his  Lord.  Probably  he  imagined  that  Jesus 
was  about  to  assert  by  force  his  Messianic  au- 
thority as  King  of  Israel,  and  that  his  words 
were  meant  to  remind  the  eleven  of  their  lack 
of  military  prowess  and  courage  to  meet  death 
on  the  battle  field  for  him.  Jesus  ansAvered 
him.  Whither  I  go,  thou  canst  not  follow 
me  now;  but  thou  shalt  follow  me  af- 
terwards. Thus  the  Master  answered  the 
thought  of  the  disciple,  though  not  his  ques- 
tion. For  Peter's  question  was  asked  because 
he  thought  his  Master  could  name  no  place 
nor  danger  into  which  he  was  not  ready  to 
follow  him.  And  Jesus,  perceiving  this  un- 
derlying thought,  the  real  motive  to  his  ques- 
tion, made  his  reply  to  it,  reiterating  his  state- 
ment, that  Peter  could  not  follow  him  now; 
and  then  graciously  adding  that  he  would 
follow  afterwards.  The  separation  was,  there- 
fore, to  be  only  temporary. 

37.  Lord,  why  cannot  I  follow  thee 
now?  I  will  lay  down  my  life  for  thy 
sake  (or,  lit.,  for  thee).  Hence  he  has  no 
suspicion  that  there  is  a  divine  plan  which  re- 
quires the  separation  of  his  Lord,  by  means 
of  death,  from  the  circle  of  his  disciples.  He 
imagines  that  their  inability  to  follow  him 
must  be,  perhaps,  a  want  of  courage  to  face 
death,  or  of  fortitude  to  endure  sufferings; 
and,  if  that  be  all,  he  makes  bold,  in  the 
warmth  of  his  affection,  to  assure  his  Master 
that  one,  at  least,  of  his  disciples  is  ready  to 
die  for  him.  This  is  Peter,  as  we  have  learned 
his  character  from  the  other  Gospels — impul- 
sive, self-confident,  and  a  little  apt  to  over- 
estimate his  own  strength. 


Ch.  XIV.] 


JOHN. 


279 


38  Jesus  answered  hiui.  Wilt  thou  lay  down  thy  life 
for  luy  sake/  Verily,  verily,  1  say  unto  thee,  The  cock 
shall  not  crow,  till  tUou  hast  denied  me  thrice. 


.Jesus  answcreth,  Wilt  thou  lay  down  thy  life  for 
me?  Veril}-.  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  The  cock  shall 
not  crow,  till  thou  hast  denied  me  thrice. 


LET  "not  your  heart  be  troubled:  ye  believe  in  God, 
believe  also  in  me. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

1      Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled :  '  believe  in  God, 


aver.  27;  ch.  16:  2'J,  23. 1  Or,  ye  believe  in  God. 


38.  Jesus  answered.  Wilt  thou  lay 
down  thy  life  for  my  sake  (or,  me)  ?  The 
Master  repeats  the  very  words  of  his  over- 
confident disciple,  so  that  the  contrast  between 
them  and  his  prediction  of  this  disciples'  con- 
duct in  the  hour  of  trial  may  be  felt.  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  the  cock  shall  not 
crow,  till  thou  hast  denied  me  thrice. 
Far  from  laying  down  his  life  for  Jesus,  Peter 
would  even  disown  him  again  and  again  before 
to-morrow' s  dawn.  Doubtless,  the  spirit  of  Pe- 
ter was  such  as  to  render  this  emphatic  dec- 
laration necessary  ;  for  it  is  very  noticeable, 
in  all  the  Gospels,  how  perfectly  the  words  of 
Christ  are  adapted  to  the  moral  state  of  those 
addressed. 

Luke  adds  some  particulars  to  this  account. 
(SeeLuke22:  31-38)  Matthew  and  Mark  speak 
of  a  dialogue  resembling  this,  as  occurring 
after  the  company  had  left  the  upper  room, 
and  were  on  their  way  to  Gethsemane;  but 
the  substance  of  the  conversation  may  have 
been  repeated  under  slightly  diiferent  circum- 
stances. Mark  represents  Jesus  as  saying: 
"Verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  that  thou,  to-day, 
this  night,  before  a  cock  crow  twice,  will 
deny  me  thrice."  And  it  will  be  observed 
that,  as  the  day  began  at  sunset,  Mark  gives 
first  the  longest  period,  "to-day";  then  a 
shorter  one,  "this  night,"  and  then  the  short- 
est, "before  a  cock  crow  twice" — i.  e.,  first 
at  midnight,  and  then  at  three  in  the  morning. 
The  other  Evangelists  refer  only  to  the  cock- 
crowing  at  the  hour  of  three  a.  m.,  for  this 
was  the  oftenest  heard,  and  the  best  known. 
There  is  no  real  discrepancy,  therefore,  be- 
tween the  four  Evangelists  as  to  the  import  of 
Christ's  language  to  Peter. 

At  this  point,  probablj',  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  instituted;  and  after  it  Jesus  uttered  the 
words  of  ch.  14. 


Ch.  14.  1-6.  Jesus  Comforts  His  Dis- 
ciples IN  View  of  Their  Future  Life 
WITH  God. 

1.  Let  not,  etc.    "Whether  the  Lord's  Sup- 


per was  instituted  before  Jesus  uttered  the 
words  recorded  in  13:  36-38,  or  not  till  after 
his  prediction  of  Peter's  fall,  in  the  last  verse 
of  that  paragraph  (ver.  38.)  cannot  be  certainly 
ascertained.  Andrews  and  Gardner  assign  it 
to  the  former  position,  Robinson  and  Clark  to 
the  latter:  and  the  latter  seems  to  us  slightly 
more  probable  than  the  former.  But,  accord- 
ing to  either  hypothesis,  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
the  hearts  of  the  disciples  must  have  been 
troubled ;  in  the  one  case,  because  the  death  of 
their  Lord  had  been  distinctly  announced  and 
set  apart  as  an  event  to  be  commemorated  by 
a  solemn  rite  to  the  end  of  time;  and  in  the 
other,  because  his  immediate  departure,  amid 
circumstances  that  would  lead  the  foremost 
disciple  to  a  cowardly  denial  of  his  Master 
before  another  sun  should  rise,  had  been 
plainly  foretold.  How  sweetly,  then,  must 
these  words  of  comfort  and  of  promise  have 
found  their  way  into  the  soul  of  the  Evan- 
gelist who  was  reclining  by  the  side  of  Jesus! 
Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled.  The 
word  heart  is  frequently  employed  to  denote 
the  spirit  when  affected  by  joy  or  sorrow, 
hope  or  fear,  peace  or  trouble,  exultation  or 
contrition.  (Comp.  John  16:  22;  Acts  2:  26; 
John  14:  27;  16:  6;  Rom.  9:  2;  2  Cor.  2:  4.) 
A  little  knowledge  of  human  nature,  assisted 
by  a  vigorous  effort  of  imagination  to  repro- 
duce in  thought  the  scene,  will  enable  one 
to  realize,  in  some  degree,  the  agitation  and 
sorrow  which  the  eleven  felt  at  the  words 
of  Jesus  declaring  the  crisis  to  have  come, 
and  the  gracious  influence  of  his  assurance 
that,  nevertheless  they  had  ample  grounds 
for  peace,  and  trust,  and  hope.  Ye  (?) 
believe  in  God,  believe  also  in  me. 
The  Greek  original  is  here  ambiguous. 
For  the  word  believe  may  be  impera- 
tive in  both  clauses,  as  we  would  translate 
it;  or,  indicative  in  the  first  clause,  and 
imperative  in  the  second,  as  the  Common 
Version  has  it;  or,  indicative  in  both  clauses, 
reading  thus:  "Ye  believe  in  God;  in  me 
also  ye  believe."    And  any  one  of  these  three 


280 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


2  In  my  Father's  house  are  many  mansions:  if  it 
were  not  so,  I  would  have  told  you.  "  1  go  to  prepare  a 
place  for  you. 

3  And  if  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  'I  will 
come  again,  and  receive  you  unto  myself;  "that  "^ where 
I  am,  there  ye  may  be  also. 


2  believe  also  in  me.  In  my  Father's  house  are  many 
1  mansions;  if  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have  told  you; 

3  for  I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you.  And  if  I  go 
and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  come  again,  and  will 
receive  you  unto  myself;  that  where  1  am,  <Aere  ye 


.6  ver.  18.  28;  Acts  1 :  11 c  ch.  12:  26;  17  :  24  ;  1  Theas.  4:  17. 1  Or.  ahiding-place.. 


translatibns  gives  a  meaning  pertinent  to  the 
circumstances  and  occasion.  According  to 
the  first,  which  we  prefer,  Jesus  exhorts  his 
disciples  to  peace,  to  trust  in  God,  and  to  trust 
in  himself,  also.  According  to  the  second,  he 
exhorts  them  to  peace,  recognizes  their  trust 
in  God,  and  calls  upon  them  to  trust  in  him- 
self, also.  And  according  to  the  third,  he 
exhorts  them  to  peace,  recognizes  their  faith 
in  God,  and  their  faith  in  himself,  also.  In 
favor  of  the  second  view,  it  is  said  that  the 
disciples  certainly  had  faith  in  God,  but  they 
were  still  deficient  in  faith  in  Christ.  "VVe 
think,  rather,  that  they  had  a  certain  degree 
of  faith  in  Christ  as  well  as  in  God,  but  that 
in  both  cases  it  needed  to  be  strengthened. 

2.  In  my  Father's  house,  etc.  God  is 
here  spoken  of  by  Jesus  Christ  as  being,  in 
some  peculiar  sense,  his  Father,  but  also  by 
implication  as  being,  in  another  sense,  the 
Father  of  his  disciples.  (Comp.  8:  35,  and 
especially  20:  17.)  Moreover,  the  heavenly 
home  of  his  Father  is  represented  as  spacious, 
having  many  dwelling  places.  Many  is  the 
word  emphasized.  The  family  of  God's  re- 
deemed ones  will  be  large,  but  there  will  be 
no  lack  of  abodes  for  them.  And  those 
abodes  will  be  abiding  place.*,  places  where 
they  will  remain  (iiovai,)  homes.  When  these 
are  reached,  the  time  of  pilgrimage  will  be 
over.  But  the  word  many  does  not,  as  has 
been  conjectured  by  some,  implj'  variety  in 
the  mansions,  and  so  point  to  gradations  of 
happiness  among  the  saved.  That  thought, 
however  true  it  may  be,  is  not  contained  in 
the  words  used  by  Christ.  If  it  were  not 
so,  etc.  Jesus  thus  claims  to  be,  and  to  have 
been,  absolutely  frank  with  his  disciples;  so 
open  and  sincere  that  he  would  not  have  al- 
lowed them  to  entertain  false  expectations; 
much  less,  then,  would  he  excite  expectations 
which  would  not  be  fulfilled.  This  was  said 
with  the  utmost  simplicity  and  tenderness,  as 
if  to  children,  for  the  purpose  of  creating  in 
their  hearts  the  deepest  confidence  in  his 
words. 

For,  (as  in  Kev.  Ver.),  I  go  to  prepare  a 


place  for  you.  A  reason  for  the  preceding 
statement.  If  there  had  been  no  room  for 
them  in  his  Father's  house,  he  would  have 
told  them,  for  he  was  going  to  prepare  a  place 
for  them.  If  heaven,  his  Father's  house  and 
his  own  blessed  home,  could  not  be  theirs 
also,  he  who  was  now  leaving  them  to  prepare 
a  place  for  them  would  have  notified  them  of 
that  fact,  lest  "his  own"  might  suffer  disap- 
pointment at  last.  This  appears  to  be  the 
most  obvious  interpretation  of  the  clause. 
Yet  it  may  possibly  refer  to  the  exhortation 
to  peace  and  trust:  "Let  not  your  heart  be 
troubled,"  etc. — the  clause  "If  it  were  not  so, 
I  would  have  told  you,"  being  virtually  a 
parenthesis.  The  doctrine  of  the  sentence  is, 
that  Jesus,  by  going  to  the  Father  in  the  way 
he  was  about  to  go,  and  by  presenting  him- 
self before  his  Father  in  heaven,  would  make 
heaven  a  blessed  home  for  all  his  disciples. 
All  heaven  would  be  ready  to  receive  them, 
when  "the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world"  should  be  exalted  to  the 
right  hand  of  power.  It  would  be  "a  pre- 
pared place  for  a  prepared  people."  The 
word  translated  for,  seems  to  have  been  a 
part  of  the  original  text,  and  has,  therefore, 
been  taken  into  account  in  explaining  the 
verse. 

3.  And  if  I  go  and  prepare,  etc.  Not 
as  if  there  were  any  doubt  about  his  doing 
this.  The  words  only  assume  that  his  going 
and  doing  what  he  had  promised,  would  be 
no  more  than  a  natural  prelude  and  prepara- 
tion for  something  that  was  to  follow.  The 
prepared  place  must  not  remain  without  the 
people  for  whom  it  is  prepared.  I  will 
come  again.  When  and  how?  Many  hold 
that  this  points  to  a  single  event,  to  take  place 
at  one  and  the  same  time  for  all  the  disciples, 
that  is,  to  the  Second  Advent  of  Christ  at  the 
end  of  the  present  age,  or  dispensation.  But 
it  may  be  observed  that  the  Greek  original  of 
will  come  is  in  the  present  tense,  and  may, 
therefore,  denote  a  process  as  well  as  a  single 
act.  Indeed,  this  is  the  proper  tense  of  the 
Greek  verb  to  express  the  continuance  of  a 


Ch.  XIV.] 


JOHN. 


281 


4  And  whither  I  go  ye  know,  and  the  way  ye 
know. 

^  Thomas  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  we  know  not 
whither  thou  goest ;  and  how  can  we  know  the  way  ? 


4  may  be  also,    i  And  whither  I  go,  ye  know  the  way. 

5  Thomas  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  we  know  not  whilher 


1  Many  aucient  authorities  read,  And  whither  I  go  ye  know,  and  the  way  ye  know. 


given  act  or  process,  and,  in  the  present  in- 
stance, might  be  represented  by  the  literal 
version,  /  am  coming  again.  Says  West- 
cott:  "  Christ  is,  in  fact,  from  the  moment  of 
his  resurrection  ever  coming  to  the  world  and 
to  the  church,  and  to  men,  as  the  risen  Lord." 
(Comp.  1:9.)  Yet  it  may  doubtless  be  said 
also,  with  Clark:  "The  promise  of  his  com- 
ing again  will  only  be  realized  in  its  fullness 
at  his  second  advent  at  the  end  of  the  world; 
for  not  until  then  do  Christ's  people  enjoy  all 
the  fruits  of  his  completed  redemption." 
And  receive  you  unto  myself.  The 
Greek  verb  is  here  in  the  future  tense,  and 
mny,  therefore,  refer  to  some  particular  event, 
as  that  of  death,  by  which  the  believer  is 
taken  to  the  home  of  his  Lord.  (Comp.  Phil. 
1 :  23.)  On  this  and  the  foregoing  clause,  Al- 
ford  says  :  "The  com,ing  again  of  the  Lord  is 
not  one  single  act,  as  his  resurrection,  or  the 
descent  of  the  Spirit,  or,  his  second  personal 
advent,  or  the  final  coming  to  judgment, 
but  the  great  com.plex  of  all  these,  the  result 
of  which  shall  be,  his  taking  his  people  to 
himself  to  be  where  he  is.  This  "coming" 
is  begun  (ver.  is)  in  his  resurrection — carried 
on  (ver.  23)  in  the  spiritual  life  (see  also  ch.  16: 
22  If, )  the  making  them  ready  for  the  place 
prepared;  further  advanced  when  each,  by 
death,  is  fetched  away  to  be  with  him  (pmi.  i:23:) 
fully  completed  at  his  coming  in  glory,  when 
they  shall  forever  be  with  him  (iTiiess.  4:  u)  in 
the  perfected  resurrection  state."  That 
where  I  am  ye  may  be  also.  The  word 
there  maj'  be  supplied  (as  in  the  Common 
Version  and  the  Revised  Version,)  before  ye, 
but  it  is  scarcely  necessary.  With  this  lan- 
guage may  be  compared  the  words  of  his  in- 
tercessory prayer,  17  :  24,  and  the  language  of 
Paul  quoted  above.  (Phii.  i:23;  aiso2Cor.D:8.)  The 
comment  of  Godet  on  this  verse  deserves  to 
be  repeated:  "With  what  touching  sim- 
plicity and  dramatic  life  are  here  expressed 
the  ideas,  so  profound  and  so  new,  of  the 
celestial  glory  of  the  believer  and  of  the 
spiritual  union  with  Christ  here  below,  which 
is  its  indispensable  condition!  The  house  of 
my  Father,  the  preparation  of  abodes,  the  re- 


turn, the  'I  will  receive  you  to  myself — this 
familiar  and  almost  infantile  language  is  like 
a  sweet  music  with  which  Jesus  seeks  to  calm 
the  anguish  of  separation."  If  anything 
could  have  brought  peace  into  the  perturbed 
and  sorrowful  hearts  of  the  eleven,  it  mu^-t 
have  been  such  words  as  these,  assuring  them 
of  reunion  with  himself,  their  gracious  and 
loving  Master. 

4.  And  whither  I  go  ye  know,  and  the 
way  ye  know.  Rather,  a7id  lohither  (lit., 
wltere)  I  go,  ye  kyiow  the  way — or,  in  custom- 
ary English  :  "Ye  know  the  way  where  /am 
going."  The  pronoun  I  is  emphatic.  What 
he  had  just  said  was,  virtually:  "I  am  going 
to  my  Father's  house;  you  cannot  follow  me 
now,  but  the  time  will  come  when  you  shall 
follow  me  thither.  For,  as  I  have  shown 
you,  my  body  and  blood  are  to  be  given  for 
you  in  death  (icor.  ii:  26),  and  the  way  I  am 
going  must  therefore  be  known  to  you."  It 
is  not,  then,  necessary  to  suppose  that  Jesus 
was  mistaken  as  to  their  knowledge.  He  only 
used  the  language  of  common  life,  ascribing 
to  them  a  knowledge  of  that  which  he  had 
told  them,  and  which  they  must  have  under- 
stood, if  they  had  been  willing  to  receive  his 
word.  The  disciples  could  have  known,  and 
ought  to  have  known,  that  which  Jesus  as- 
sumes that  they  knew.  Thus,  we  may  say 
that  he  held  them  responsible  for  a  knowledge 
of  the  way  that  he  was  going — that  is,  the 
way  through  death  to  the  Father.  And  there 
is  a  deep  truth  in  such  language.  Many  are  the 
men  who  know  and  who  do  not  know  at  the 
same  moment— many  are  the  men  to  whose 
minds  truth  has  been  brought,  but  who  have 
refused  to  look  at  it,  and  accept  it.  (Comp. 
3  :  19-21.)  This  is  oftenest  done  because  their 
deeds  are  evil ;  and  always  because,  for  some 
reason,  they  are  unwilling  to  receive  the  per- 
fect truth. 

5.  Lord,  Ave  know  not  whither  thou  go- 
est;  and  how  can  we  know  the  way? 
Unable  to  accept,  in  their  natural  sense,  the 
Saviour's  words  concerning  his  approaching 
death,  Thomas  had  missed  the  import  of  his 
language  respectingthe  Father's  house.(ver.2, 3-) 


282 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


6  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  I  am  "the  way,  'the  truth, 
and  ^the  life:  ''no  man  cometh  unto  the  Father,  but 
by  me. 


6  thou   goest;    how  liuow  we  the  way?    Jesus  saitl> 
unto  him,  1  am  the  way,  and  the  truth,  aud  the  liie. 


!  Heb.  9:  8 ioh.  1:  17;  8:  32 c  oh.  1 :  4;  11:  25 d  ch.  10:  9. 


Unable  to  comprehend  his  Lord's  words  con- 
cerning his  Father's  house,  Thomas  very  nat- 
urally feels  that  he  knows  nothing  of  the  way 
thither.  For,  ordinarily,  a  knowledge  of  the 
way  to  any  place,  implies  some  knowledge  of 
the  place  to  which  the  way  leads.  But  Thomas 
feels  himself  to  be  ignorant  of  both  place  and 
way.  His  Master's  words  are  very  dark  and 
enigmatical  to  him.  Their  obvious  meaning  is 
one  that  he  will  not  and  cannot  receive ;  and  re- 
jecting that  as  impossible,  his  mind  is  full  of 
perplexity  and  doubt.  Indeed,  the  one  great 
misapprehension  which  he  will  not  surrender 
—that  Jesus  is  to  be  a  temporal  prince,  and 
therefore  cannot  literally  suffer  death,  ren- 
ders it  quite  impossible  for  him,  or  for  his  fel- 
low disciples,  to  understand  the  mind  of  Je- 
sus. Peter  and  the  other  disciples  may  have 
caught  a  passing  glimpse  of  it  (comp.  13:  37  ; 
Mark  14:  31),  but  no  more  than  a  glimpse; 
for  they  did  not  give  up  their  vain  expectation 
of  a  temporal  reign  till  they  were  compelled 
to  do  so. 

6.  I  am  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life. 
Here,  again,  we  have  the  emphatic  ego.  Je- 
sus summons  his  disciples  to  look  upon  him- 
self slb  the  beginning  and  end  of  their  salva- 
tion. Westcott  quotes  the  paraphrase  of 
Thomas  a  Kempis:  "'Sine  via  non  itur,  sine 
veritate  non  cognoscitur,  sine  vita  non  vivitur. 
Ego  sum  via  qiinm  sequi  debes ;  Veritas  cui  cre- 
dere debes :  vita  quam,  sperare  debes.^' — ("  De 
Imit.,"  III.  56) ;  which  may  be  rendered, 
with  much  loss  of  flavor :  "  Without  the  way, 
we  cannot  go;  without  the  truth,  we  cannot 
know;  without  the  life,  we  cannot  live.  I 
am  the  way  which  you  ought  to  follow — the 
truth  which  you  ought  to  believe — the  life 
which  you  ought  to  hope  for." 

Because  of  sin,  men  are  separated  from 
God ;  and  only  through  Jesus  Christ,  who  is 
giving  his  life  for  their  life,  can  they  draw 
near  to  God,  and  obtain  pardon,  purity,  and 
peace.  He  is  the  way — i.  e  ,  the  one  and 
only  way — to  fellowship  with  God.  B3'  his 
mediation,  if  at  all,  will  they  be  saved. 
Through  him,  if  at  all,  will  they  enter  the 
house  of  many  mansions. 

Again  ;  because  of  sin,  men  are  ignorant  of 


the  highest  truth ;  they  know  not  God  ;  hi? 
wisdom,  holiness,  goodness,  compassion,  are 
hidden  from  them;  and  no  light  of  nature 
is  clear  enough  to  reveal  to  their  souls  these 
perfections  of  his  being.  But  Christ,  and 
especially  Christ  "the  Lamb  of  God,  that 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  is  a  per- 
fect revelation  of  Jehovah.  Christ  Jesus,  as 
he  passes  through  suffering  to  glory,  is  the 
holy  and  the  whole  substance  of  truth,  bring- 
ing to  light  the  very  heart  of  God.  He  is,  so 
to  speak,  the  sole  and  sufficient  Word  of  God 
concerning  himself,  as  merciful  to  sinners; 
and  therefore  he  who  receives  this  truth  will 
never  walk  in  darkness. 

Still  further;  according  to  this  profound 
saying  of  Jesus,  he  is  himself  the  life — i.  e., 
the  source,  or  fountain-head,  of  spiritual  life 
for  sinful  men.  And  so  the  apostle  who 
wrote  this  Gospel  says,  in  his  First  Epistle 
(5:  12):  "He that  hath  the  Son,  hath  (the)  life; 
and  he  that  hath  not  the  Son  of  God,  hath  not 
(the)  life."  Of  course,  the  "life"  is  here 
more  than  conscious  existence — it  is  "right- 
eousness and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  (Rom.  u:  17.),  it  IS  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  all  good  to  a  moral  and  religious  be- 
ing— perfect  communion  with  the  "Father  of 
lights."  For  this  is  what  Clirist  enjoyed;  and 
those  who  derive  their  life  from  him  will  be 
partakers  of  his  joy. 

The  whole  saying  of  Jesus  declares  what 
men  may  have  in  him,  namely,  the  only  way 
to  God;  the  only  perfect  revelation  of  God; 
the  only  source  of  life  with  God.  As  soon  as 
they  accept  the  way,  they  accept  the  truth 
and  the  life.  As  soon  as  they  begin  to  follow 
the  way,  they  besrin  to  know  the  truth,  and  to 
share  the  life.  The  consummate  blessing  is 
future;  theincipientblessingispresent.  Th-jse 
who  believe  in  Christ  have  passed  from  death 
into  life.  The  I  am  is  therefore  no  mere  pre- 
diction ;  it  describes  a  relation  that  is  present 
and  permanent.  Communion  with  God, 
through  Christ,  begins,  but  never  ends.  No 
man  (or,  no  one)  cometh  unto  the  Father 
but  by  (through)  me.  If  there  were  any 
reason  to  doubt  the  view  which  we  have  given 
of  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life,  namely. 


Ch.  XIV.] 


JOHN. 


28^ 


7  « If  ye  had  known  me,  ye  should  have  known  my 
Father  also:  and  from  henceforth  ye  know  him,  and 
have  soen  him. 

8  I'hilip  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  shew  us  the  Father, 
and  it  sufficeth  lis. 

9  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Have  I  been  so  long  time 
with  you,  and  yet  hast  thou  not  known  me,  Philip?  '  lie 
that  hath  seen  "me  hath  seen  the  Father;  and  how  say- 
est  thou  then.  Shew  us  the  Father? 


7  no  one  cometh  unto  the  Father,  hut  '  by  uie.  If  ye 
liad  known  me,  ye  would  have  known  my  Father 
also:  fr(jm  heucoforlh  ye  know  hini,  and  have  seen 
<S  him.  I'hilip  saicli  uuio  him,  l..i»rd,  shew  us  the 
9  Father,  and  it  sutriceth  us.  Jesus  saiih  unto  him, 
Have  1  lieen  so  long  time  with  you,  and  dost  thou 
not  know  me,  I'hiliiJi'  he  that  haili  seen  mo  hath 
seen  the  Father;    how  sayest  thou,  Shew  us  the 


a  cb.  8:  19 &cli.  12:  45;  Col.  1 :  15  ;  Ueb.  1:  3. 1  Or,  through. 


that  Jesus  claims  to  be  the  only  way  and  truth 
and  life  for  sinful  men,  it  would  be  removed 
by  this  clause.  For  here  it  is  explicitly  taught 
that  no  one  comes  to  the  Father,  unless  he 
comes  through  Christ.  No  wonder,  therefore, 
that  when  Peter,  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
stood  before  the  rulers  of  Israel,  he  said  unto 
them:  "Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any 
other:  for  there  is  none  other  name  under 
heaven,  given  among  men,  whereby  we  must 

be  saved."    (Acts*:  Vi.) 

In  this  expression  Jesus  passes  also  from  the 
thought  of  a  heavenly  home  to  that  of  a  heav- 
enlyFather.  He  represents  the  "life"  of  men 
as  attained  by  coming  to  the  Father.  A  knowl- 
edge of  God  as  their  Heavenly  Father — a  sight 
of  his  gloiy  in  peace,  is  evidently  regarded  as 
the  supreme  good — as  the  "  life  "  for  which 
human  souls  were  made;  and  he  affirms  that 
through  himself  alone  is  this  filial  access  to 
God,  and  this  real  knowlege  of  God,  to  be 
gained — a  thought  which  forms  the  nucleus  of 
the  next  paragraph,  (ver.  7-11.^ 

7-11.  God  the  Father,  Present  and 
Revealed  in  Christ. 

7.  If  ye  had  known  me,  etc.  That  is,  had 
come  to  know  me.  Jesus  had  been  living  a 
truly  divine  life  for  many  months  in  the  pres- 
ence of  his  disciples.  The  holiness  and  love 
of  the  Father  had  appeared  in  all  his  words 
and  deeds.  ('=■  19-21.)  But  the  eleven  true  disci- 
ples had  not  clearly  perceived  this.  In  spite 
of  their  intimate  association  with  Jesus,  they 
had  seen  but  little  of  his  divine  perfection. 
For  their  e3-es  had  been  holden  by  prejudice 
and  sin.  Endeavoring  to  recognize  in  him 
the  Messiah  of  their  early  hopes,  and  of  the 
national  expectation,  they  had  apprehended 
very  imperfectly  the  true  glory  of  his  charac- 
ter, the  profound  unity  of  his  life  with  the  life 
of  God.  But  if  thej'  had  truly  known  him, 
they  would  have  known  his  Father  also;  and 
in  so  far  as  they  had  known  him,  they  had 
known  his  Father.  And  from  henceforth 
ye  know  him,  and  have  seen  him.    So 


I  near  was  the  time  of  their  true  illumination, 
that  Jesus  speaks  of  it  as  already  present.  The 
great  event  of  his  own  death  and  resurrection 
and  ascension,  together  with  the  outpouring 
of  the  Spirit,  was  so  near,  so  vividly  present  to 
the  mind  of  Christ,  that  he  uses  the  present 
tense  in  describing  the  effect  of  it  all  on  the 
spiritual  view  of  his  disciples.  We  should 
omit  the  connective  and,  as  probably  an  ad- 
dition to  the  original  text — principally  because 
the  sentence  is  more  fluent  and  natural  with 
than  without  it,  and  therefore  it  was  more  like- 
ly to  be  inserted  by  a  transcriber,  if  absent 
from  the  text,  than  to  be  omitted,  if  present  in 
the  text.  The  evidence  in  early  manuscripts 
and  versions  for  insertion  and  for  omission  is 
pretty  evenly  balanced. 

8.  Lord,  show  us  the  Father,  etc.  Just 
what  Philip  meant  by  this  expression,  we  do 
not  know.  Perhaps  he  desired  some  visible 
manifestation  of  the  divine  glory,  such  as  was 
made  at  times  to  the  ancient  prophets.  He 
may  have  imagined  that,  at  the  Saviour's  re- 
quest, the  Father  would  appear  in  the  Sheki- 
nah,  and  by  his  supernatural  presence  expel 
every  doubt  from  their  minds.  But  whatever 
he  may  have  wished,  it  is  plain  that  he  did  not 
understand  the  language  of  Jesus;  and  it  is 
probable  that  the  words,  "from  henceforth  ye 
.  .  .  have  seen  him,"  suggested  the  thought 
of  a  supernatural  manifestation  of  the  Father. 
How  tender  and  loving,  but,  at  the  same  time, 
how  solemn  and  mysterious,  must  have  seemed 
these  sayings  of  the  Lord  to  minds  not  yet 
open  to  the  whole  truth  !  We  may  wonder 
at  their  dullness;  but,  in  their  time  and  place, 
we  should  have  been,  without  doubt,  as  dull 
as  the3'. 

9.  Have  I  been  so  long  time  with  you, 
and  yet  hast  thou  not  known  me,  Philip  ? 
This  may  have  been  uttered  either  in  a  tone 
of  gentle  reproof  or  in  one  of  sorrowful  sur- 
prise. It  is  always  difficult  to  penetrate  the 
soul  of  a  human  being  by  the  light  of  a  single 
brief  expression  ;  how  much  more  difficult  is 


284 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


10  Believest  thou  uot  that  "  I  aiu  in  the  Father,  and 
the  father  iu  me?  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you  '  I 
speak  uot  of  myself:  but  the  Father  that  dvvelleth  in 
iiie,  he  doeth  the  works. 

11  Believe  me  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  in  me:  "or  else  believe  me  for  the  very  works' 
sake. 


10  Father?  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am  iu  the  Father, 
and  the  Father  in  me?  the  words  that  I  say  unto 
you  I  speak  not  from  myself:   hut  the  Father  abid- 

11  ing  in  me  doeth  his  works.  Believe  me  that  I  am 
in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me:  or  else  believe 


ooh.  10:38;  17:21,23;  ver.  20....6  ch.  5: 19;  7  :  16;  8:  28;  12  :  49....0  ch.  5:  •  6  ;  10  :  38. 


it  to  penetrate  that  of  a  being  at  once  human 
and  divine  !  Perhaps,  then,  the  Lord's  ques- 
tion was  equivalent  to  the  words:  "As  I  have 
been  so  long  with  you,  Philip,  you  ought 
surely  to  have  known  me  ;  but  you  do  not."  [ 
Yet,  when  we  bear  in  mind  the  true  humanity 
of  Christ,  it  is  not  improper  to  suppose  that  a 
feeling  of  sorrow  mingled  with  surprise  filled 
his  heart  at  the  words  of  Philip.  Let  us  ever 
speak  with  cautious  reverence  in  respect  to 
that  mysterious  world — the  divine-human 
consciousness  of  our  Lord !  Of  this,  how- 
ever, we  are  certain,  that  Philip  had  not  j'et 
seen  the  full  glory  of  Christ's  character,  nor 
perceived  how  near  he  himself  had  been  to 
the  Father.  Ah,  if  but  the  eyes  of  his  spirit 
had  been  opened!  as  the  eyes  of  the  pro- 
phet's servant  were  opened.  (See  2  Kings  G: 
17.)  "  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they 
shall  see  God."  (Matt.  5:8.)  A  prejudiced  and 
sinful  soul  cannot  see  the  presence  of  God, 
even  in  the  holy  person  of  Jesus.  He  that 
hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father. 
Meaning,  of  course,  not  the  essential  nature 
of  God,  nor  the  Father  as  personally  distinct 
from  the  Son,  but  the  Father's  mind  and 
will,  the  Father's  moral  glory  and  grace,  the 
Father's  abhorrence  of  sin  and  purpose  to 
save  the  lost — in  a  word,  all  the  Father's  per- 
fection. For  Jesus  Christ,  even  while  here 
in  the  flesh,  was  "the  brightness  of  his 
(Father's)  glory  and  the  express  image  of 
his  person,"  (Heb.i:3.) — i.e.,  the  true  and 
adequate  manifestatation  of  the  invisible 
Godhead.  And  being  this,  we  conclude  that 
he  was  divine  as  well  as  human.  For  if  such 
a  claim  were  put  forth  by  any  other  being  who 
ever  trod  the  earth  in  human  form,  he  would 
surely  be  pronounced  insane,  or  blasphemous. 
That  we  do  not  and  cannot  think  of  Jesus 
save  as  the  greatest  and  holiest  being  that  has 
appeared  among  men,  is  proof  of  his  deity  as 
well  as  of  his  humanity.  Observe,  too,  that 
this  claim  does  not  stand  by  itself;  it  is  the 
basis  of  an  appeal,  the  premise,  as  it  were,  of 
a  reproof :  How  sayest  thou  then.  Shew  us 


the  Father?  "Why  ask  for  what  you  have 
received?  Why  seek  to  see  what  ye  have 
already  seen,  and  what  you  now  behold?  In 
me  you  look  upon  the  brightest  possible 
image  and  revelation  of  the  Father ;  his 
whole  heart,  and  life,  and  power  are  in  me; 
why  then  do  you  say,  'Show  us  the  Father, 
and  it  sufficeth  us?'  " 

10.  Believest  thou  not,  etc.  The  mutual 
indwelling  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  had 
been  previously  as.serted  hy  the  Lord  (see 
10:  38),  and  Philip  miglit,  therefore,  be  pre- 
sumed to  believe  it.  Moreover,  the  Saviour 
had  used  language,  on  several  occasions, 
which  pointed  to  a  perfect  unity  of  will  and 
action  in  the  Father  and  himself,  and  whicli 
would  naturally  lead  to  the  thought  of  mutual 
interpenetration  and   perfect  communion   of 

life— e.  5^.,     (5.  19,  20,  30;  8:  16.  IS;  10:ao-30.)       But    tllC 

disciples  had  failed  to  apprehend  the  full 
meaning  of  his  words,  and,  therefore,  he  was 
now  compelled  to  repeat  them.  The  words 
that  I  speak,  etc.  This,  too,  is  but  a  repetition 
of  what  he  had  often  said  before.  (See  7:  16, 
17  ;  8:  16,  18,  26,  28,  29.)  Not  from  himself,  as 
one  separate  from  the  Father,  had  Jesus 
spoken,  but  always  in  perfect  union  with  the 
Fatlier,  and  as  one  doing  his  will.  But  the 
Father  that  clwelleth  (or,  abiding)  in  me, 
he  doeth  the  Avorks.  This  transition  from 
words  to  works  is  peculiar  and  characteristic. 
No  one  can  read  the  Gospels  without  perceiv- 
ing that  the  words  and  the  works  of  Jesus  are 
in  perfect  accord.  Thej'  seem  to  flow  from 
the  same  will  and  to  reveal  the  same  spirit. 
No  shock  is  felt  by  the  reader  in  passing  from 
one  to  the  other.  Everj'  sentence  in  his  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  is  as  full  of  authority  as 
is  his  command  to  the  winds  sweeping  over 
the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  or  his  words  at  the  grave 
of  Lazarus,  in  Bethany.  And  so,  in  a  very 
important  sense,  his  words  were  deeds,  and  it 
wa?  perfectly  natural  for  him  to  glide  from 
the  former  to  the  latter,  in  such  a  case  as  the 
one  before  us. 

11.  Believe  me,  etc.     How  often  does  the 


Ch.  XIV.] 


JOHN. 


285 


12  "Verily,  veril}',  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  believeth 
on  me,  the  works  that  I  do  shall  he  do  also ;  and  greater 
U'ork.i  than  these  shall  he  do ;  because  I  go  unto  luy 
Father. 


12  me  for  the  very  works'  sake.  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  He  that  believeth  on  me,  the  works  that  I 
do  shall  he  do  also ;  and  greater  works  than  these 


a  Matt.  21 :  21 ;  Mark  16 :  17 ;  Luke  10 :  17. 


word  believe  fall  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  in 

this  Gospel !  A  hundred  times  does  it  appear 
in  the  record,  and  generally  in  the  sayings  of 
Christ.  How  strongly,  then,  must  he  have 
set  his  heart  upon  producing  belief  in  the 
hearts  of  men,  and  upon  strengthening  it  in 
the  hearts  of  his  disciples!  "  Believe  in  God, 
believe  also  in  me,"  is  the  key-note  of  his 
preaching.  But  how  often,  too,  was  he 
obliged  to  admit  a  lack  of  proper  belief,  even 
in  his  most  trusted  followers!  in  the  sifted 
wheat  of  the  eleven  who  had  been  with  him 
constantly  for  three  years  !  Especially  was 
tbis  the  case  when  he  referred  to  his  peculiar 
relations  with  the  Father,  or  to  the  spiritual 
nature  of  his  reign.  It  was  so  now.  "With 
the  deepest  love  and  sincerity,  with  tones  of 
voice  that  were  as  impossible  to  fanaticism  as 
they  were  to  vanity  or  conscious  deception,  he 
said:  "Believe  me,  accept  my  solemn  and 
repeated  testimony,  that  I  am  in  the  Father 
and  the  Father  in  me;  but  if  you  find  this 
impossible — if,  after  all  you  have  seen  of  me, 
my  word  is  not  enough,  consider  the  mighty 
works,  the  signs  and  wonders  which  I  have 
wrought,  and,  in  view  of  these,  believe  me 
when  I  say,  that  '  I  am  in  the  Father,  and 
the  Father  in  me,'  for  these  are  manifestly 
works  which  none  but  God  could  do."  To 
think  that  he  must  appeal  to  miracles  once 
more!  that  he  must  array  the  evidence,  as  it 
were,  before  the  minds  of  his  disciples,  prov- 
ing, as  well  as  asserting  the  truth  !  But  we 
must  not  forget  how  stupendous  a  truth  it 
was;  how  difficult  for  a  few  to  receive;  how 
seemingly  incompatible  with  what  Jesus  had 
just  now  been  saying  as  to  his  own  death. 
All  the  contrasts  involved  in  the  being  and 
the  work  of  Christ  were  reflected  in  this  pro- 
found discourse  with  his  disciples,  as  the 
earlj'  evening  was  deepening  into  the  night. 
Never  were  his  infinite  love  and  tenderness  to 
his  chosen  more  needed  or  more  clearly  re- 
vealed. He  was  all  care  for  them,  though  the 
garden  and  the  cross  were  just  before  him. 

12-24.  The  Faith  and  Love  of  the 
Disciples  Encouraged  by  Three  Great 
Promises. 


Faith  and  love  are  inseparable  Christian 
virtues,  and  their  fruit  is  obedience.  For  faith 
cannot  live  without  love,  or  love  without  obe- 
dience. We  do  not  saj',  without  perfect  obe- 
dience ;  for  neither  faith  nor  love  is  perfect  in 
this  life,  and  therefore  obedience  remains  im- 
perfect. But  obedience  will  keep  pace  with 
faith  and  love,  improving  as  they  improve; 
and  when,  in  a  better  state,  they  become  per- 
fect, it  will  become  perfect  also. 

12-14.  Faith  Encouraged  by  the  Prom- 
ise OF  Divine  Help  and  Success. 

12.  Verily,  verily,  etc.  'By  the  repeated 
verily,  Christ  seeks  to  give  his  disciples  the 
utmost  assurance  of  the  truth  of  what  he  is 
about  to  say — partly,  perhaps,  because  of  its 
intrinsic  importance  to  the  full  establishment 
of  his  reign  over  men,  and  partly,  perhaps, 
because  of  its  surprising  character,  rendering 
it  a  saying  difficult  to  believe  or  receive.  He 
that  believeth  on  me.  Observe,  it  is  not 
believeth  me — that  is,  believeth  my  word — the 
truth  of  what  I  say,  but,  definitely,  believ- 
eth on  me,  or,  in  tne — that  is,  trusts  in  me  as 
the  true  Messiah  and  Son  of  God — makes  me 
the  personal  object  to  which  his  faith  is  di- 
rected, and  in  which  it  terminates  and  rests. 
"Belief  on  hin),,"  says  Weiss,  "includes  the 
full  conviction  of  bis  specific  relation  to  the 
Father,  and  with  this,  of  his  Messianic  calling 
in  the  highest  sense."  The  Avorks  that  I 
do,  etc.  The  term  works  has  just  been  used 
with  special  niference  to  miracles,  and  on  this 
account  we  must  not  exclude  mirncles  from 
its  meaning  here.  But  it  should  not  be  for- 
gotten that  Jesus  appears  to  have  regarded  his 
miracles  as  secondary  and  subsidiary  to  his 
teaching.  Their  evidential  value  was,  indeed, 
great  to  the  Jews,  and  their  significance,  as 
acts  of  divine  compassion,  was  clear;  but  they 
were  mere  sporadic  flashes  of  light,  and  not 
the  steady  beams  of  the  sun.  They  were  in- 
tended to  prepare  the  minds  of  men  for  his  spir- 
itual teaching,  and  not  to  hold  an  equal  place 
with  that  teaching.  And  therefore,  interpret- 
ing his  words  here  by  what  he  .says  in  other 
places,  and  by  the  history  of  his  people,  we 
understand  by  works,  all  that  he  did  in  draw- 


286 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


13  "And  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name, 
that  will  I  do,  that  the  Father  may  be  glorified  iu 
the  Son. 

14  If  ye  shall  ask  anything  in  my  name,  I  will 
do  it. 


13  shall  he  do;   because  I  go  unto  the  Father.    And 
whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name,  that  will  I  do, 

14  that  the   Father   may  be   glorified  iu  the  Sou.     If 
ye  shall  >  ask  anything  iu  my  name,  that  will  I  do. 


!  Matt.  1 :  1 ;  n  :  22  ;  Mark  U  :  24  ;  Luke  11 :  9  ;  ch.  15  : 


I  1 :  5  ;  1  John  3  :  22 


t^Dt  authorities 


ing  men  to  himself,  and  implanting  in  their 
hearts  true  faith.  These  works  were  to  be 
continued  by  his  disciples,  and,  indeed,  not 
merely  by  those  who  were  listening  to  him  at 
that  moment,  but  by  believers  iu  him  in  every 
age  and  every  land.  And  greater  than 
these  shall  (or,  will)  he  do — i.  «.,  "he  that 
believeth  on  me  will  do  greater  works  than 
those  which  I  have  done."  A  very  wonder- 
ful promise!  But  has  it  been  fulfilled?  We 
think  it  has.  For  if  we  look  at  the  wonders 
of  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  together  with  the 
events  that  followed  in  the  rapid  spread  of  the 
gospel  during  the  apostolic  age,  it  does  not 
seem  extravagant  to  regard  them  as  greater 
than  any  which  took  place  during  the  minis- 
try of  Christ.  And  if  we  compare  the  spirit- 
ual results  of  the  three  most  fruitful  3'ears 
of  the  ministry  of  Paul,  of  Luther,  of  White- 
field,  orof  Spurgeon,  with  the  spiritual  results 
of  Christ's  preaching  and  miracles  for  three 
years,  we  shall  not  deem  his  promise  vain. 
And  if  it  be  urged  against  the  latter  instances 
that  miracles  are  wanting,  it  may  be  replied 
that  supernatural  works  in  the  realm  of  spirit 
are  superior,  rather  than  inferior,  to  those  in  the 
world  of  sense— that  to  raise  a  soul  from  death 
unto  life  is  really  a  greater  act  than  to  raise  a 
dead  body  from  the  grave.  Because  1  go 
unto  my  (lit.,  the)  Father,  This  clause  is  to 
be  connected  with  the  following  verse,  and 
the  whole  must  be  understood  as  depending 
on  the  word  because,  and  as  furnishing  the 
reason  why  the  believer  in  Jesus  will  do 
greater  works  than  were  done  by  his  Lord  in 
the  flesh— of  course,  not  including  his  sacri- 
ficial death.  The  presence  of  Christ  with  his 
Father  will  be  the  reason  and  pledge  of  extra- 
ordinary grace  to  his  followers. 

13,  14.  And  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in 
my  name,  that  will  I  do,  etc.  These  verses 
present  several  things  worthy  of  note.  (1) 
Their  connection  witli  the  first  part  of  verse 
12  is  important.  The  works  to  be  done  by  be- 
lievers in  Christ,  are  to  be  done  by  divine  help, 
in  answer  to  their  prayers.  More  definitelj% 
they  are  to  be  done  by  help  coming  from 


Christ— that  will  I  do.  (2)  This  help  is  in 
some  way  dependent  on  his  going  to  the 
Father — that  is,  on  his  glorification  through 
death.  In  other  words,  the  manner  in  which  he 
is  about  to  finish  his  earthly  mission  and  go  to 
the  Father,  is  to  make  him  a  perfect  Advocate 
with  the  Father.  (See  1  John  2:  1.)  Thus 
these  verses  are  closely  connected  with  the 
last  part  of  verse  12,  and  should  be  separated 
from  it  by  a  comma  only.  (3)  Their  effectual 
prayers  are  to  be  offered  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Ciirist.  This  is  clearly  expressed :  Whatso- 
ever ye  shall  ask  in  my  name.  And  this 
seems  to  have  been  the  first  occasion  on  which 
it  was  mentioned.  (Comp.  16:  24.)  What, 
then,  is  it  to  ask  in  the  name  of  Christ  ?  Some 
expositors  take  the  name  of  Christ  to  be  the 
element  in  which  the  prayer  is  offered,  and 
regard  in  the  najne  of  Christ  as  substantially 
equivalent  to  in  Christ.  But  an  examination 
of  the  passages  where  the  former  expression 
occurs  (namely,  John  5:  43;  10:  25;  14:  26; 
15:  16;  16:  23,  24,  26;  and  Mark  9:  38;  16: 
17;  Luke  10:  17;  Acts  3:6;  4:  10;  comp.  2: 
28),  leads  to  the  following  view :  (1)  To  ask  in 
the  name  of  Christ,  is  to  ask  as  a  servant  of 
Christ,  honoring  his  authority,  trusting  in  his 
grace,  and  seeking  to  do  his  will.  (2)  Wiiatever 
a  true  believer  in  Christ — who  rests  not  on  his 
own  authority,  but  on  the  authority  of  his 
Lord,  and  who  seeks  not  his  own  glor^-,  but 
the  glory  of  his  Lord — shall  ask  God  to  do, 
he  maj'  expect  will  be  done.  (3)  Hence,  asking 
in  the  name  of  Christ  presupposes  being  in 
Christ;  but  the  two  expressions,  asking  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  and  asking  in  Christ,  are  not 
precisely  equivalent  to  each  other.  (4)  The 
end  contemplated  by  Christ  in  answering  the 
prayers  of  his  own  is,  that  the  Father  may 
be  glorified  in  the  Son.  The  things  which 
he  will  therefore  do  at  their  request  will  be 
those,  and  it  may  be  those  onh',  which  tend 
to  manifest  the  grace  and  glorj'of  the  Father. 
This  furnishes  another  limit  to  the  meaning  of 
whatsoever  ye  shall  ask.  Only  that  which 
is  asked  in  Christ's  own  name,  and  which,  if 
done  by  him,  will  tend  to  reveal  the  glorious 


Cji.  XIV.] 


JOHN. 


287 


1!/  "If  ye  love  me,  keep  luy  conimandiuoiits. 

16  And  I  will  ]iray  tiie  Fallier,  and  'he  shall  give 
you  another  Coiul'oriur,  that  he  may  abide  with  you 
lor  ever ; 

17  £'i'eu  "the  Spirit  of  truth  ;  <^wliom  tlie  world  can- 
not receive,  because  it  sueth  him  nut,  neither  knowcth 
him:  but  ye  know  him;  for  he  dwelleth  with  you, 
eaud  shall  be  in  you. 


15  If  ye   love  me,  ye   will   keep   my   commandments. 

16  And  I  will  'pray  the  Father,  and  he  ;  hall  give 
you  another  ^Comforter,  that  he  may  be  with  you 

17  lor  ever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth  :  whom  the  world 
cannot  receive;  for  it  beholdeth  him  not,  neither 
kuoweth    him:     ye    know    him;     for    he    abideth 


a  ver.  21,  23;  cli.  15 


..b  ch.  15:26;  16:  7;  Kom.  8:  15,  26.... c  ch.  15:  26;  16:  13:  1  John  4:  6.. 
-I  Cir.  niuke  request  of 2  Or,  Advoeate;  or.  Helper.    Gr.  Paraclete. 


.d  1  Cor.  2:  14. 


character  of  his  Father,  does  the  Saviour  here 
protiiise  to  do.  But  these  are  limits  which 
every  true  Christian  will  approve.  To  sup- 
pose one  dissatisfied  with  them,  is  to  suppose 
him  either  thoughtless  or  self-willed,  and  so  a 
stranger  to  the  ver^'  spirit  and  reign  of  Christ. 

According  to  the  reading  of  verse  14, 
adopted  in  the  Revised  Version,  and  probably 
correct,  it  should  be  translated :  If  ye  shall 
ask  me  anything  in  tny  name,  that  I  will  do. 
An  emphatic  repetition  of  the  promise  just 
given  in  verse  13.  Yet  with  one  modification ; 
for  the  prayer  is  here  represented  as  not  only 
offered  in  the  name  of  Christ,  but  also  as  ad- 
dressed to  Christ.  This  may  seem  at  first 
sight  inconsistent  with  another  statement  of 
Jesus  in  the  same  interview  (i6: 23,)  but  it  is 
not  (see  Note  on  that  verse),  and  it  is  quite 
certain  that  the  apostles  and  early  Christians 
did  pray  to  their  ascended  Lord,  (see  Acts 
7:  59;  9:  14,  21;  22:  16;  1  Cor.  1:  2),  as  well 
as  quite  certain  that  his  own  claims  of  unity 
with  the  Father  in  the  work  of  human  salva- 
tion, and  of  special  headship  over  his  people, 
were  sufficient  warrant  for  this.  Notice  also, 
that  the  pronoun  I,  (evui, )  is  expressed,  and 
therefore,  in  some  degree,  emphatic.  "It  i^ 
I,  myself,  who,  after  my  departure,  will  do 
this  great  work  for  you  and  with  you."  But 
the  special  waj''  in  which  he  will  do  this  is  not 
yet  stated  ;  only  that  it  is  to  be  done  by  him- 
self \\\  answer  to  praj'er. 

15-17.  The  Holy  Spirit  Promised  to 
Those  who  Love  the  Saviour. 

15.  If  ye  love  rae,  keep,  etc.  According 
to  the  true  text,  the  Revised  Version  gives— 
If  ye  love  me,  ye  will  keep  my  cornmandmetits. 
Love  produces  obedience.  Indeed,  it  is  itself 
the  truest  and  deepest  part  of  obedience,  and 
the  spring  from  which  all  other  obedience 
flows.  This  inward  movement  of  the  soul  to 
Christ  in  heaVtfelt  appreciation  and  devotion, 
is  the  practical  source  of  all  outward  action 
in  accordance  with  his  will.  "  The  subject  of 
the  love  of  the  disciples  for  Christ  (comp.  8: 


42),  is  peculiar  to  this  and  the  following  sec- 
tion. (15-31.)" —  IVestcott.  Yet  there  is  no  true 
faith  without  love,  and,  therefore,  whenever 
Jesus  speaks  of  faith  in  himself  he  implies 
love  to  himself.  Hence  this  section  is  closely 
connected  with  the  {^receding.  By  my  com- 
mandments,  must  be  meant  all  the  precepts 
and  directions  which  the  Saviour  gave  to  his 
followers,  thus,  not  merely  the  "new  com- 
mandment," but  all  his  demands  upon  heart 
and  life  in  their  relations  to  God,  to  himself, 
to  their  fellow  Christians,  and  to  their  fellow 
men,  including  all  that  he  said  of  Christian 
ordinances  and  of  church  life. 

16,  17.  And  I  will  pray  (or,  ask)  the 
Father.  The  word  {ipurav)  which  we  would 
translate  ask,  is  not  the  word  {alTelv)  so  trans- 
lated in  verses  13  and  14.  In  the  Revised 
Version  it  is  rendered  pray,  and  by  this 
change  the  reader  is  at  least  reminded  that 
there  are  two  words  in  the  original.  But 
scholars  are  not  yet  agreed  as  to  the  precise 
distinction  between  the  two.  Westcott  (see 
his  Note  on  16:  29)  holds  that  ipurav  has  a 
peculiar  sense  in  John,  "expressing  a  request 
made  on  the  basis  of  fellowship,  and  is  used 
in  the  Gospel  only  of  the  petitions  of  the 
Lord.  (Contrast  ai^r./  11:  22,  Note.)"  The 
same  distinction  is  affirmed  by  Trench  ("New 
Testament  Synonyms,"  under  the  word  aWiui.) 
But  there  is  reason  to  que.stion  the  correct- 
ness of  it.  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  in  an  article  of  the 
"North  American"  for  Jan uar3',  1872,  comes 
to  the  following  result:  ^' Aited  (Airew)  is,  in 
general,  to  ask  for  something  which  one  desires 
to  receive,  something  to  be  given,  rarely  for 
something  to  be  done;  it  is  therefore  used  when 
the  object  sought  is  prominent  in  the  mind  of 
the  writer;  hence,  also,  it  is  very  rarely  em- 
ployed as  exhortation.  Erotno  (EpwTaw),  on 
the  other  hand,  is  to  request  or  beseech  a  per- 
son to  do  something,  rarely  to  give  some- 
thing; it  refers  more  directly  to  the  person  of 
whom  the  favor  is  sought,  and  is,  therefore, 
naturally  used  in  exhortation  and  entreaty," 


288 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


It  may  be  said  with  some  confidence,  that 
erotan  (cpwrav)  is  fairly  represented  by  the  word 
"ask,"  with  its  two  meanings  of  putting  a 
question  and  of  making  a  request,  while  aitein 
{airfiv)  is  often  used  in  the  more  urgent  sense  of 
seeking  by  earnest  entreaty  or  petition  for 
some  good.  And  he  shall  (or,  will)  give  you 
another  Comforter  {Advocate  or  Helper). 
The  word  Comforter  is  retained  in  the 
Eevised  Version,  but  it  does  not  represent 
adequately,  in  this  passage,  the  Greek  term 
Paraclete  ( napi/cArjTos. )  For,  notice  (1)  that 
Christ  speaks  of  the  Spirit  whom  the  Father 
was  about  to  give  them,  at  his  request,  as 
another  (akkov)  Paraclete,  but  not  as  a  differ- 
ent sort  of  (cTepoi-)  Paraclete.  This  implies 
that  Jesus  had  been  a  Paraclete  to  his  dis- 
ciples, and  that  the  Spirit  would  do  for  them 
substantially  the  same  thing  which  he  had 
been  doing.  But  Jesus  had  not  been  chieflj' 
a  Consoler  of  his  disciples,  but  the  Father's 
Representative  and  Advocate  with  them,  even 
as  he  was  now  to  be  their  Representative  and 
Advocate  with  the  Father.  (2)  The  Para- 
clete is  here  described  as  the  Spirit  of  it  he) 
truth,  as  if  a  principal  part  at  least,  of  his 
service  to  the  disciples  would  consist  in  im- 
parting to  them  the  truth  of  God,  or,  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus;  and  this  agrees  with 
the  account  which  Christ  gives  of  that  service 
in  other  parts  of  this  discourse.  (See  14:  26; 
15:  26;  16:  8-15.)  But  the  end  for  which 
Christian  truth  was  revealed  to  the  disciples 
was  not  simply,  or  even  chiefl}',  to  console 
them.  Comfort  was  but  a  secondary  object; 
the  primary  object  was  to  make  them  true 
servants  of  Christ,  lovers  of  righteousness 
and  haters  of  evil,  able  to  endure  hardness  as 
good  soldiers  of  Jesus  Christ,  "steadfast,  un- 
movable,  alwa5's  abounding  in  the  work  of 
the  Lord."  (3)  The  word  Paraclete,  as  used 
by  John  in  his  first  Epistle  (2:  i,)  evidently 
signifies  Advocate — i.  c,  one  who  acts,  pleads, 
intercedes  with  the  Father  for  his  own,  who 
have  sinned.  And  there  a;>pears  to  be  no 
suflScient  reason  why  the  term  should  be  sup- 
posed to  have  a  different  meaning  here.  For, 
certainly,  the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  said  to  act 
or  plead  for  Christ  with  his  people,  and  with 
mankind  in  general.  He  recalls  and  reveals 
the  truth  pertaining  to  Christ  and  to  the 
Father,  that  men  may  be  convicted,  con- 
verted,   enlightened,    sanctified,    and    made 


strong  in  the  Lord.  He  acts  as  the  represen- 
tative of  Christ,  inducing  and  enabling  men 
to  receive  him  as  their  Saviour  and  to  obey 
him  as  their  Lord.  And  there  is,  perhaps,  no 
better  term  with  which  to  express  this  than 
Advocate.  If  we  were  to  select  any  other,  it 
would  be  the  more  general  term  Helper;  but 
we  prefer  to  abide  hy  that  used  in  1  John  2:  1. 
That  he  may  abide  (be)  with  you  forever. 
By  these  words  is  described  the  fellowship  of 
the  Spirit.  For  with  (nera,  properly  mnong) 
is  used  with  the  genitive  "in  reference  to  per- 
sonal    association    (John  S:  22;  IS:  2;  Acts  9:  39),  and 

alternate  action  (John  4:27;  6:43;  Matt,  is:  23),  espe- 
cially of  intellectual  or  moral  (Matt.  20 :  2;  2:3; 
1  John  1 :6.'')  (See  also,  Thayer's  "  Winer,"  Rov. 
Ed.,  p.  376.)  Thus  the  Spirit  would  be  asso- 
ciated with  them  in  holy  intercourse,  as 
Christ  had  been.  Really,  though  invisibly, 
he  would  be  their  Mentor  and  Guide,  b^-  re- 
minding them,  as  their  Lord's  Advocate  and 
Representative,  of  his  works  and  words,  char- 
acter and  claims,  even  to  the  end  of  time. 
Yet,  observe  that  this  is  not  promised  as  a 
fellowship  of  the  Spirit  with  the  church,  or 
with  the  churches,  but  rather  as  his  fellow- 
ship with  individual  disciples;  primarily, 
with  the  eleven  to  whom  he  was  speaking,  but 
constructively,  with  all  who  should  believe 
through  their  word.  Whom  the  world 
cannot  receive,  because  it  seeth  him 
not  (for  it  beholdeth  him  not — Rev.  Ver. ), 
neither  knoweth  him.  The  unbelieving 
world  cannot  receive  the  "Spirit  of  truth," 
because  it  has  no  direct  perception  or  mediate 
knowledge  of  him.  The  former  is  meant  by 
beholdeth,  and  the  latter  by  knoAveth.  The 
world  has  neither  that  knowledge  of  the 
Spirit  which  comes  by  inward  experience, 
nor  that  which  is  gained  by  a  candid  weigh- 
ing of  testimonj',  or  other  evidence  from 
without.  And  so,  through  culpable  igno- 
rance, it  refuses  to  welcome  his  presence, 
even  as  his  own  people  refused  to  welcome 
the  Lord  of  life,  when  he  came  to  them.  (i:ii.) 
But  ye  know  him.'  A  blessed  privilege 
and  distinction,  separating  them  forever  from 
the  unbelieving  world  !     The  present  tense  of 


'The  conjunction  bnt,  is  probably  to  be  rejected  as 
forming  no  part  of  the  original  text.  It  is  wanting  in 
X  B  Q,  and  it  is  much  easier  to  account  for  its  insertion 
than  for  its  omission. 


Ch.  XIV.] 


JOHN. 


289 


18  "I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless :  '  I  will  come  to 
you. 

19  Yet  a  little  while,  and  the  world  seeth  nie  no 
more;  but  "ye  see  me:  ■'because  I  live,  ye  shall  live 
also. 


18  with  you,  and  shall  be  in   you.    I  will  not  leave 

19  you  1  desolate:  I  come  unto  you.  Vet  a  little 
while,  and  the  world  bclioldeth  lue  no  more ;  but 
ye  behold  me :    because  I  live,  ^  ye  shall  live  also. 


a  Matt.  28:  20 b  ver.  3  :  28 c  ch.  16  :  16 d  1  Cor.  15:  20. 1  Or,  Orfihant Or,  and  ye  shall  live. 


the  verb  is  not,  in  the  opinion  of  Weiss,  to  be 
understood  as  anticipating  the  future,  but  as 
"denoting  a  characteristic  relation  of  the 
disciples  to  the  Spirit,  without  regard  to  a 
definite  time."  And  nearly  the  same  view  is 
expressed  by  Westcott.  But  whatever  tiie 
Spirit  may  have  been  to  the  disciples,  up  to 
this  moment  (and  we  do  not  question  his 
presence  in  their  hearts),  Jesus  appears  to 
have  had  in  mind  a  greater  manifestation  of 
his  presence  and  power  in  the  future.  The 
wliole  context  favors  a  proleptical,  or  antici- 
patory, use  of  the  present  tense.  In  a  very 
important  sense,  the  characteristic  relation  of 
the  disciples  to  the  Spirit,  was  to  begin  after 
the  Saviour's  departure.  (Comp.  ver.  25,  26; 
15:  26;  16:  7).  For  he  dvvelleth  (or,  and  he 
abideth)  with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you. 
The  expression  with  you  (Trap'  vfilv,  literally', 
beside  you),  though  different  from  the  one 
used  in  verse  16,  has  nearly  the  same  mean- 
ing. It  may  possibly  suggest  the  personality 
of  the  Spirit  a  little  more  distinctly  than  that, 
but  both  of  them  point  to  intimate  connection 
and  association.  The  Spirit  was  to  remain 
with  them  permanently,  and  by  his  presence 
qualify  them  for  all  their  work.  (Comp.  Ex. 
3:  12.)  Nay,  he  was  to  be  in  them — a  Spirit 
in  their  spirits,  illuminating,  quickening,  en- 
couraging, by  a  most  immediate,  though 
mysterious,  action  on  mind,  heart,  and  will, 
taking  and  presenting  to  them  the  things  of 
Christ  with  such  clearness,  that  Christ's  glory 
would  be  seen  by  them  more  perfectly  than  it 
had  ever  been  seen  while  he  was  walking  be- 
side them  in  bodily  form. 

18-24.  Jksus  Himself  and  the  Father 
"Will  be  Present  "With  Them  by  the 
Spirit. 

18.  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless  {or- 
phans). Jesus  had  already,  in  this  discourse, 
called  his  disciples  "little  children."  (i3:33.) 
His  love  for  them  at  this  moment  was  like  a 
father's  love  to  his  children.  But  he  was  able 
to  say  to  them  words  which  no  dying  father 
can  say  to  his  little  ones:  "I  will  not  leave 
you  in  the  condition  of  orphans,  alone,  un- 
protected, comfortless."     I  will   come  (lit., 


come=am  coming)  to  you.  "The  presence 
of  the  Advocate  will  be  my  presence.  He 
will  come  with  all  my  power,  grace,  and 
truth,  and  so,  in  a  spiritual  sense,  I  shall  be 
with  you.  To  your  minds  and  hearts,  I  shall 
be  nearer  by  his  agency  than  I  am  now  by  my 
bodily  presence  and  words  of  love.  My  per- 
son and  my  work,  as  the  Son  of  God  and 
Saviour  of  men,  will  be  presented  to  your 
souls  as  never  before;  and  my  power  will  be 
with  you  in  every  time  of  need."  Some  in- 
terpreters hold  that  tills  promise  of  coming  to 
his  disciples  was  fulfilled  when  Jesus  "showed 
himself  to  them  alive,  after  his  passion,  by 
many  infallible  proofs,  being  seen  of  them 
forty  days."  (Acts i:  3.)  But,  not  to  insist  on 
the  brief  and  sporadic  character  of  those  man- 
ifestations, the  following  verses,  especially  21 
and  23,  do  not  agree  with  this  view.  (Comp. 
Matt.  28:  20.)  Others  hold  that  the  promise 
refers  to  the  second  coming  of  Christ.  But 
against  their  interpretation  may  be  urged  the 
prediction  that,  at  his  second  coming,  "every 
eye  shall  see  him"  (Kev.  i:7),  while  verse  19 
shows  that  "the  world"  will  not  behold  him 
at  the  return  to  his  disciples  which  is  here  pre- 
dicted. 

19.  Yet  a  little  while,  etc.  "The  world 
can  now  see  me  in  bodily  form,  but  after  a 
few  hours  I  shall  be  withdrawn  from  its 
sight."  The  hostile  world  will  not  behold 
him,  for  it  has  no  spiritual  vision— it  cannot 
behold,  or  know,  or  receive  the  promised  Ad- 
vocate, the  Spirit  of  truth,  in  and  by  whom 
the  Saviour  is  coming  back,  with  richer  bless- 
ing, to  his  own.  But  ye  see  (behold)  me. 
Again  the  present  in  the  sense  of  the  future  : 
"Ye  will  behold  me  at  my  coming,  through 
the  Spirit."  The  Day  of  Pentecost  witnessed 
the  fulfillment  of  these  words.  Because  I 
live,  ye  shall  live  also.  The  words  may  also 
be  translated, /or  /  live,  and  ye  shall  live.  This 
construction  is  defended  by  Watkins  and 
"Weiss,  but  is  rejected  by  most  interpreters. 
It  gives  a  feebler  sense  than  the  usual  con- 
struction, and  it  is  not  required  by  the  con- 
text. As  to  the  life  promised  to  the  disciples, 
it  can  be  no  other  than  the  new  and  blessed 


290 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


20  At  that  day  ye  shall  know  that  "I  am  in  my 
Father,  and  ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you. 

21  ''He  that  hath  my  commandments,  and  keepeth 
them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me:  and  he  that  loveth  me 
shall  be  loved  of  my  Father,  and  I  will  love  him,  and 
will  manifest  myself  to  him. 


20  In  that  day  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  in  my  Father, 

21  and  ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  He  that  hath  my 
commandments,  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that 
loveth  me:  and  he  that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of 
my  Father,  and  I  will  love  him,  and  will  manifest 


over.  10;  ch.  10:  38;  17:  21,23,  26 h  ver.  15:  23;  IJcilin  2:5;  5:3. 


life  of  fellowship  with  God,  which  begins 
here,  and  reaches  perfection  hereafter.  But 
this  life  of  the  disciples  is  represented  as  de- 
pendent on  the  life  of  Jesus:  Because  I 
live,  etc.  Is  there  any  objection  to  the  view 
that  Jesus  claims  for  himself,  at  this  point, 
just  such  a  life  of  fellowship  with  God?  Of 
the  rightfulness  of  this  claim,  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead  would  soon  furnish  overwhelm- 
ing evidence.  And  because  this  life  had  been, 
and  would  continue  to  be,  perfect  in  himself; 
because  his  union  with  the  Father  was  per- 
fect, and  his  doing  tl>e  Father's  will,  even  to 
the  suffering  of  death,  perfect— he  could  be  the 
Author  of  life  to  every  one  that  believeth. 
And  this  spiritual  life  was  the  necessary  con- 
dition of  beholding  Christ  in  and  through  the 
Paraclete.  The  sense,  therefore,  is  :  "Ye  will 
behold  me  again  when  the  Paraclete  is  given  ; 
for,  though  I  go  from  you  to  the  Father,  by 
way  of  the  cross,  I  shall  have  uninterrupted 
fellowship  with  him,  accomplishing  his  pur- 
pose of  redemption ;  and  through  me,  you  will 
also  be  in  fellowship  with  the  Father  and  the 
Son." 

20.  At  (or,  in)  that  day,  ye  shall  know, 
etc.  A  profound  description  of  the  life  just 
promised  to  the  disciples!  AVhen  the  Spirit 
should  be  given,  they,  in  contrast  with  the 
unbelieving  world,  and  perhaps  in  distinction 
from  their  present  selves,  should  know  by  his 
illumination  the  perfect  fellowship  uniting  the 
Son  of  God  with  his  Father,  and  with  his  true 
followers.  Notice  the  double  expression  of 
the  fellowship  between  himself  and  his  cho- 
sen—ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you;  ye  sharing 
my  purposes,  and  seeking  my  lionor,  and 
I  sympathizing  with  your  infirmity',  and 
strengthening  your  hope. 

21.  He  that  hath  my  commandments, 
and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth 
me.  Christ  here  assumes  that  he  has  given 
commandments  to  men.  He  therefore  virtu- 
ally claims  to  be  their  Lord.  Moreover,  he 
declares  that  true  obedience  to  these  com- 
mands is  proof  of  love  to  himself.  Hence 
such  obedience  can  spring  from  no  other  af- 


fection; for  if  it  could  spring  from  any  other 
ailection,  or  be  rendered  without  any  affection, 
it  would  be  no  certain  evidence  of  love. 
(Comp.  ver.  15  and  Note.)  And  may  we  not 
infer  from  the  emphatic  he  it  is  that  loveth 
nie,  tliat  one  who  fails  to  obey  Christ's  com- 
mandments is  destitute  of  love  to  liim  ?  Does 
it  not  imply  that  he,  and  only  he,  who  keeps 
his  Lord's  commandments,  can  be  said  to  love 
him?  And  he  that  loveth  me  shall  be 
loved  of  my  Father.  The  Father's  love  to 
the  Son  renders  it  certain  that  his  love  will 
flow  forth  to  all  who  love  and  honor  the  Son. 
The  same  thing  had  been  said,  in  other  words, 
months  before,  to  the  Jews  (5: 20-23.)  And  it 
agrees  with  all  that  is  written  about  the  char- 
acter of  Christ.  For  as  the  Son  is  "the  bright- 
ness of  his  (the  Father's)  glorj',  and  the  express 
image  of  his  person"  (neb. i:  3),  as  Jesus  could 
say,  "he  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the 
Father"  (ver. 9,  above);  it  follows  that  love  to  the 
Son,  in  his  true  character,  is  identical  in  moral 
quality  with  love  to  the  Father,  and  must, 
therefore,  call  forth  responsive  love  from  him. 
And  I  will  love  him.  For  whom  the  Father 
loves,  the  Son  will  love,  not  only  because  he 
is  always  and  absolutely  of  one  mind  with  the 
Father;  and  because,  loving  the  Father  with 
a  perfect  love,  he  delights  in  all  who  honor 
and  obey  him — but  also  because  he  appreciates 
the  love  of  his  own  to  himself,  and  wishes  to 
assure  them  again  and  again  of  his  own  love 
to  them — a  love  which,  as  they  will  soon 
know,  is  stronger  than  death.  And  will 
manifest  myself  to  him.  The  word  trans- 
lated manifest  (efi^aviiiiv),  is  found  also  in 
Matt.  27:  53,  and  Heb.  9:  24;  while  the  cor- 
responding adjective  (e/n^or^s)  occurs  in  Acts 
10 :  40,  and  Rom.  10:  20.  "  The  exact  force  of 
the  word,"  remarks  Westcott,  "is  that  of  pre- 
sentation in  a  clear,  conspicuous  form."  Yet 
Jesus  does  not  here  refer  (see  ver.  23)  to  any 
visible  manifestation  of  himself  in  bodily  form 
after  his  resurrection,  but  rather  to  the  very 
distinct  view  of  himself  which  he  would  give 
to  the  disciples  by  the  Spirit.  Through  the 
Spirit's  agency,  he  himself,  in  all  the  glory  of 


Ch.  XIV.] 


JOHN. 


291 


22  «  Judas  saitli  unto  him,  not  Iscariot,  Lord,  how  is 
it  that  thou  wilt  manifest  thyself  unto  us,  and  not  unto 
the  world? 

23  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him, '  If  a  man  love 
me,  he  will  keep  my  words:  and  my  Father  will  love 
him,  and  <=we  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode 
with  him. 

24  He  that  loveth  me  not  keepcth  not  my  sayings: 
and  <<the  word  which  ye  hear  is  not  mine,  but  the 
Father's  which  sent  me. 


22  myself  unto  him.  Judas  (not  Iscariot)  saith  unto 
him.  Lord,  what  is  come  to  pass  that  thou  wilt  mani- 

23  fesl  thyself  unto  us,  and  not  unto  the  world?  Jesus 
answered  and  said  unto  him,  If  a  man  love  me,  he 
will  keep  my  word:  at;d  my  Father  will  love  him, 
and  we  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode 

24  with  him.  He  that  loveth  me  not  keepeth  uot  my 
words :  and  the  word  which  ye  hear  is  not  mine, 
but  the  Father's  who  sent  me. 


iLuke6:I6....iver.  15...  .c  IJohn  a  :  24  ;  Eev.  3  :  20....d  ch.  5  :  19,38;  7:16;  8:28;  12:  49;  ver.  10. 


his  character  and  work,  would  be  presented  to 
their  minds.  (Comp.  Gal.  3:  1.)  And  this 
higher  manifestation  of  Christ,  though  spirit- 
ual, would  "more  than  supply  the  place  of 
his  presence  under  the  conditions  of  earthly 
life."     (See  Westcott's  excellent  Note.) 

22.  Judas  saith  unto  him,  not  Iscariot. 
Except  in  the  catalogues  of  the  apostles  (see 
Matt.  10:  2-4;  Mark  3:  16-19;  Luke  6:  14-16), 
this  is  the  only  place  in  the  Gospels  where  this 
apostle  is  mentioned.  In  the  catalogues,  his 
name  always  stands  as  one  of  the  four  which 
compose  the  last  group.  He  seems  to  have 
had  two  additional  names,  Lebbeus  and  Thad- 
deus;  and  to  have  been  the  son  (or  brother)  of 
James,  though  it  is  not  certain  of  what  James. 
(See  Art.  Judas,  Lebbeus,  in  Smith's  "Diet, 
of  the  Bible.")  Lord,  how  is  it  that,  etc., 
(or,  what  is  come  to  pass  that,  etc. )  Evi- 
dently Judas  has  not  understood  the  words  of 
his  Master.  What  he  has  gathered  from 
them  is  that  Jesus  purposes  to  withdraw  from 
public  life,  and  cease  his  efforts  to  win  the 
people  to  his  cause,  while  he  still  associates 
with  his  little  band  of  disciples,  and  reveals  to 
them  his  will.  In  a  word,  he  is  tr^nng  to  bring 
his  Lord's  language  into  harmony  with  his 
own  Jewish  idea  of  the  Messiah's  reign.  And 
the  best  he  can  do  is  to  suppose  that  something 
of  which  he  is  ignorant  has  occurred,  which 
has  led  Jesus  to  decide  against  presenting  him- 
self any  more  to  the  people.  His  question  is 
probably  an  index  of  the  degree  of  under- 
standing which  the  other  apostles  had  at  this 
moment,  though  it  would  doubtless  be  unjust 
to  Peter,  James,  and  John,  to  place  them  on 
just  the  same  spiritual  plane  as  that  occupied 
by  Judas  Thaddeus. 

23.  If  a  man  love  me.  The  same  pre- 
supposition as  in  ver.  15  and  21.  My  Father 
■will  love  him.  A  repetition  of  his  .statement 
in  ver.  21.  And  we  will  come  unto  him. 
How  could  any  words  prove  more  clearly  that 
the  coming  spoken  of  was  spiritual?  For  One 


of  those  about  to  come  was  the  invisible  God, 
the  Father  of  Spirits;  and  not  even  Judas 
could  expect  to  see  him  and  live.  And  make 
our  abode  with  him.  The  plural  form  of 
the  Greek  word  which  is  here  translated 
abode,  is  translated  "mansions"  in  ver.  2. 
Its  literal  meaning  is  "an  abiding-place" — i.e., 
a  place  where  one  remains,  or  dwells.  Jesus 
therefore  says  that  he  and  his  Father  will 
make  for  themselves  (as  is  indicated  by  the 
middle  voice  of  the  verb)  permanent  homes, 
or  dwelling-places,  with  every  loving  and  obe- 
dient disciple.  But  this  abiding  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son  with  Christians  was  to  be  accom- 
plished by  the  coming  and  agency  of  the 
Spirit.  For  the  Advocate,  the  Paraclete,  was 
to  be  the  representative  of  Christ,  and  so,  of 
the  Father.  As  Christ,  in  his  earthly  life, 
presented  the  Father  to  the  hearts  of  his  disci- 
ples, so  was  "the  Spirit  of  truth"  to  present 
Christ,  and  with  him,  the  Father,  to  their 
hearts.  And  we  know  that  in  Christian  ex- 
perience the  presence  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son  is  as  real  and  distinct,  to  the  eye  of  the 
believing  soul,  as  is  that  of  the  Spirit — so  that 
the  promise  of  Jesus  has  been  fulfilled.  The 
Advocate  has  presented,  not  himself,  but  the 
Saviour,  and  with  him,  the  Father;  and  there- 
fore many  Christians  have  far  clearer  views 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son  than  they  have  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

24.  He  that  loveth  me  not  keepeth  not 
my  sayings  (or,  words).  An  explicit  state- 
ment that  without  love  to  Christ  there  is  no 
obedience  to  his  commands  (see  Note  on  ver. 
21) ;  for,  plainly,  the  words  of  Christ  include 
his  commands.  And  the  word  which  ye 
hear,  etc.  A  truth  often  before  expressed, 
but  aptly  repeated  in  this  place;  for  it  rests 
on  the  same  principle  as  that  which  supports 
the  language  of  ver.  23.  The  work  of  the 
Spirit  is  said  to  present  the  Father  and  the 
Son  to  believers,  on  the  same  principle,  or 
from  the  same  point  of  view,  as  the  word  of 


292 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


25  Thesft  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  being  yet 
present  with  you. 

26  But  "the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  '  he  shall 
teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  re- 
membrance, whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you. 

27  <:  Peace  I  leave  with  you,  my  peace  I  give  unto 
you:  not  as  the  world  giveth,  give  I  unto  you.  "^Let 
not  your  heart  be  troubled,  neither  let  it  be  afraid. 


25  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  while  yet 

26  abiding  with  you.  But  the  i<  oniforler,  even  the 
Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my 
name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  to 

27  your  remembrance  all  that  J  said  unto  you.  Peace 
I  leave  with  you;  my  peace  1  give  unto  you:  not 
as  the  world  giveth,  give  1  unto  you.    Let  not  your 


a  Luke  U:  49;  ver.  16;  cb.  15:  26;  16:  7. 


...fc  ch.  2:  22;  12:  16;  16:  13;  1  John  2  :  20,27.. 
Advocate,    Or,  Helper.     Gr.  Paraclete. 


.cPhU,  4:7;  Col.  3  :  15 d  ver.  1. 1  Or, 


Christ  is  said  to  present,  not  his  own  will,  in 
distinction  from  the  Father's,  but  the  Father's 
-will,  with  which  his  own  is  in  perfect  accord; 
and  therefore  a  statement  of  the  former  leads, 
by  a  natural  law  of  association,  to  a  restate- 
ment of  the  latter.  "Thus,"  says  Godet, 
"have  been  gradually  set  forth  the  motives 
for  encouragement  offered  by  the  Lord  :  You 
will  be  received  with  me  into  my  Father's 
house.  .  .  You  have  already  in  me  seen  the 
Father.  .  .  You  will  continue  my  work  here 
below.  .  .  Another  divine  Helper  will  give 
you  power.  .  .  In  this  inward  Helper,  I  my- 
self will  return  to  be  in  you.  .  .  And  with 
me,  the  Father  himself  will  be  with  you." 

25,  sq.  Keasons  for  Encouragement 
Eepeated  and  Enforced. 

25.  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto 
you,  being  yet  present  (better,  while  abid- 
ing) with  you.  Thus  he  reminds  them,  in 
the  principal  clause,  of  the  precious  truths 
which  he  had  uttered  during  the  evening,  and 
leads  them,  by  the  subordinate  clause,  to  infer 
that  he  is  expecting  to  leave  them  soon. 

26.  But  the  Comforter  (or,  Advocate), 
etc.  Observe  that  in  repeating  his  promise  of 
the  Paraclete,  he  applies  to  him  the  full  des- 
ignation, Holy  Spirit — a  name  which  points 
to  his  special  work  of  implanting  and  nour- 
i.«hing  a  holy  disposition  in  the  hearts  of  men. 
Here  only,  in  this  Gospel,  is  this  name  given 
to  the  Divine  Spirit.  Observe,  also,  that  the 
Advocate  is  to  be  sent  by  the  Father  in  the 
name  of  Christ— that  is,  to  speak  of  Christ  and 
for  Christ — to  reveal  the  fullness  of  his  nature 
and  the  greatness  of  his  sacrifice — to  manifest 
his  glory,  and  lead  men  to  trust  in  his  grace. 
Observe  lastl.v,  that  the  Advocate  is  (1)  to 
teach  the  disciples  all  things— i.  e..  all  things 
pertaining  to  the  Son  of  God,  and  salvation 
through  him— all  the  truths  of  the  Christian 
religion  which  are  to  be  revealed  to  men  in 
their  present  state ;  and  (2)  to  bring  to  their 
remembrance  all  that  Christ  had  said  to  them 
during  the  years  of  their  special  discipleship. 


This  work  of  the  Spirit,  commonly  called  in- 
spiration, was  unspeakably  important  to  the 
eleven  ;  for  they  were  to  give  authoritative 
expression  to  the  principles  of  Christianity, 
and  the  sayings  of  their  Lord,  for  the  benefit 
of  all  generations,  till  the  end  of  time.  And 
it  is  not  going  too  far  to  suppose  that  the  same 
Spirit  who  should  enable  them  to  recall  the 
sayings  of  Jesus,  would  enable  them  to  recall 
his  deeds  of  power — the  signs  which  he  wrought, 
especially  as  those  signs  were  revelations  of 
divine  grace,  as  well  as  of  power. 

27.  Peace  I  leave  Avith  you.  "These 
are  last  words,  as  of  one  who  is  about  to  go 
away,  and  gives  his  good-night,  or  blessing." 
— Luther.  We  may  compare  1  Sam.  1:  17; 
20:  42;  29:  7;  Mark  5:  34;  Luke  7:  50;  8: 
48;  Acts  16:  36;  James  2:  10;  Eph.  6:  23;  1 
Pet.  5:  14;  3  John  14.  But  we  feel  at  the 
same  time  that  these  words  are  no  mere 
friendly  adieu,  expressive  of  ordinary  hope 
or  desire;  they  assert  a  fact  and  furnish  as- 
surance of  what  is  to  be  done.  And,  there- 
fore, Jesus  proceeds  to  define  this  j)eace  as  his 
own  peace.  My  peace  I  give  unto  yon. 
The  legacy  which  he  thus  bequeaths  to  his 
disciples  is  the  calmness,  the  quietness,  the 
repose  of  spirit,  which  he  himself  possesses, 
and  which  is  characteristic  of  the  true  life  in 
God.  This  subjective  sense  of  the  expression 
my  peace,  is  to  be  preferred,  because  it  pre- 
sents itself  first  and  most  naturally  to  the 
reader's  mind,  because  it  is  suggested  by  the 
exhortation  which  follows  in  the  last  part  of 
the  verse,  and  because  it  is  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  the  occasion.  Jesus  would  have 
"the  high  blessed  peace"  (Weiss)  which 
filled  his  own  soul  in  prospect  of  death,  fill 
the  souls  of  his  loved  disciples  in  times  of 
peril  and  suffering,  and  this  greatest  gift  he, 
therefore,  solemnly  afiBrms  to  be  theirs  when 
he  leaves  them.  A  foretaste  of  it  may  have 
gladdened  their  hearts  as  he  uttered  these 
words;  but  the  blessing  in  its  fullness  was  not; 
received  before  the  Day  of  Pentecost.     Not 


Ch.  XIV.] 


JOHN. 


293 


28  Ye  have  heard  how  "I  said  unto  you,  I  go. away, 
and  come  again  unto  you.  If  ye  loved  me,  ye  would 
rejoice,  because  I  said,  ''1  go  unto  the  Father:  for  '  my 
Father  is  greater  than  I. 


28  heart  be  troubled,  neither  let  it  be  fearful.  Ye 
heard  how  I  said  to  you,  I  go  away,  and  1  come 
unto  you.  If  ye  loved  me,  ye  would  have  rc'joice<l, 
because  I  go  unto  the  Father :    for  the  Father  is 


a  ver.  3:  IS h  vet.  12;  oh.  16:  16;  20:  17 c  Seech.  5 :  18 ;  10:  30;  Phil.  2:  6. 


as   the   Avorld   giveth,  give   I   unto    you. 

The  precise  difference  between  tlie  giving  of 
the  world,  and  the  giving  of  Jesus,  is  not 
specified,  but  the  disciples  were  able  to  feel  or 
imagine  it  with  sufficient  clearness.  Perhaps 
it  was  revealed  by  the  tones  of  his  voice  more 
impressively  than  it  could  have  been  by  the 
strongest  words.  For  they  were  not  ignorant 
of  the  world,  of  its  formal  and  professional, 
but  reluctant,  niggardly,  and  self-interested, 
giving;  and  as  they  listened  to  the  deep  and 
loving  words  of  their  Master — words  coming 
up  from  the  infinite  heart  of  the  Holy  One, 
in  tones  of  perfect  aflPection,  they  would  feel 
the  contrast  between  the  world's  giving  and 
his  giving.  And  this  was  enough.  And  so, 
in  view  of  such  a  bequest  he  exhorts  to  peace, 
and  rebukes  their  fear.  Let  not  your 
heart  be  troubled,  neither  let  it  be 
afraid.  With  these  words  he  returns  to  the 
beginning  of  his  discourse  after  instituting 
the  Holy  Supper.  But  how  much  had  been 
said,  meanwhile,  to  prepare  their  hearts  to  re- 
ceive this  exhortation !  It  is,  therefore,  no 
idle  repetition  that  we  meet  here,  or  else- 
where in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  but  repetition  in 
altered  circumstances  and  with  augmented 
force,  and  repetition  where  the  expression 
already  used  is  better  than  any  that  can  be 
substituted  for  it. 

28.  Ye  have  heard  (strictly,  heard)  how 
I  said  unto  you,  I  go  away,  and  come 
again  (or,  I  come)  unto  you.  See  ver.  2-4. 
This  form  of  recalling  to  their  minds  what  he 
had  said,  is  somewhat  deliberate  and  em- 
phatic. "Ye  heard,  indeed,  what  I  said  to 
you  a  few  minutes  ago,  of  my  going  away 
and  coming  to  you,  and  it  filled  your  hearts 
with  sadness;  but  it  should  have  had  an  oppo- 
site eifect ;  for.  If  ye  loved  me,  ye  would 
rejoice  (or,  have  rejoiced. — Rev.  Ver.),  be- 
cause (omit  I  said)  I  go  unto  the  Father: 
for  my  (the)  Father  is  greater  than  I. 
The  principal  object  of  this  language  is  not, 
we  suppose,  to  reprove  the  disciples  for  their 
sorrow  because  it  was  selfish,  though  it  ap- 
pears to  have  been  so,  but  to  remind  them  of 
a  brighter  side  of  the   event  which   he  had 


pressed  upon  their  attention,  of  the  fact  tliat 
his  going  away  from  them  was  a  returri  to 
the  divine  state,  a  resumption  of  his  seat  at 
the  right  hand  of  power.  If,  therefore,  they 
understood  the  case,  love  to  himself  would 
lead  them  to  rejoice  in  his  departure,  since 
by  that  departure  alone  could  he  be  glori- 
fied again  with  the  Father,  who,  because 
remaining  in  the  divine  state,  was  greater 
than  he.  (Comp.  17:5).  The  implication  of 
the  passage  seems  to  be  that,  by  his  exalta- 
tion, the  Son  would  resume  a  condition  of 
being  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Father.  (See  Phil.  2:  6  sq).  And  if  this  be 
a  correct  view,  the  contrast  is  not  really  be- 
tween the  intrinsic  and  essential  nature  of  the 
Father  and  the  Word,  who  became  incarnate 
in  the  Son,  but  between  the  Father  in  his 
divine  state  and  the  Word  in  his  state  of  hu- 
miliation. This  seems  to  us  the  most  obvious 
interpretation  of  the  Lord's  words.  Weiss 
remarks:  "While  the  going  to  the  Father 
does  not  of  itself  involve  a  participation  in 
his  power,  but  only  a  participation  in  his 
heavenly  life,  withdrawn  from  all  the  limits 
and  imperfections  of  this  earthly  existence, 
this  alone  can  be  meant.  On  this  hypothesis 
only  should  their  joy  have  respect  to  his  per- 
sonal departure,  and  that  there  would  be 
something  selfish  in  demanding  such  a  joy 
(Meyer)  is  certainly  no  objection,  inasmuch 
as  a  friend  can  desire  that  his  friend  should 
rejoice  in  his  joy."  Again,  in  a  Note  at  the 
bottom  of  the  page,  he  saj's,  very  justly : 
"The  superiority  (Mei^coTijs)  of  the  Father  is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  superiority  of  the  Un- 
begotten  to  the  Begotten  (Afhnn.,  Faustin., 
Gregor.,  Naz.,  Hilar.,  Enth.,  Zig.,  and  n.anj^ 
others,  also  Olsh),  to  which  special  view  the 
text  gives  absolutely  no  occasion,  nor  again 
in  the  essential  subordination  of  the  Eternal 
Word  as  the  exalted  Christ  to  the  Father,  on 
the  ground  of  the  absolute  monothei.«m  of 
Jesus,  17:  3  (Meyer),  also,  not  certainly  upon 
the  distinction  of  the  human  and  the  divine 
nature  of  Christ  (Gerhard).  For,  without 
doubt,  Jesus  is  not  speaking  here  of  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  themselves, 


294 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIV. 


29  And  "now  I  have  told  you  before  it  come  to 
pass,  that,  when  it  is  come  to  pass,  ye  might  be- 
lieve. 

30  Hereafter  I  will  not  talk  much  with  you:  'for  the 
prince  of  this  world  cometh,  and  hath  nothing  in 
me. 

31  But  that  the  world  may  know  that  I  love  the 
Father;  and  ''as  the  Father  gave  me  commandment, 
even  so  I  do.    Arise,  let  us  go  hence. 


29  greater  than  I.  And  now  I  have  told  you  before 
it  come  to  pass,  that,  when  it  is  come  to  pass,  ye 

30  may  believe.  I  will  no  more  speak  much  wilh 
you,   for    the    prince  of   the    world    cometh :    and 

31  he  hath  nothing  in  me;  but  that  the  world  may 
know  that  I  love  the  Father,  and  as  the  Father 
gave  me  commandment,  even  so  I  do.  Arise,  let 
us  go  hence. 


ach.  13:  19;  16:  4 J  ch.  12:  31 ;  16:  11 c  ch.  10:  18;  Phil.  2:8;  Heb.  5:  8. 


but  of  the  relation  of  God  to  Cnrist  in  his 
temporal  humiliation  {CyrilL,  August,  Am- 
nion., Luther,  Melancthon,  Calvin,  Beza,  and 
many  others,  also,  De  Wette,  Thol. ),  and  Heng- 
stenberg  is  perfectly  correct,  when  he  says 
that  only  such  a  superiority  of  the  Father 
can  be  meant  as  would  'come  to  an  end'  by 
the  going  of  the  Son  to  the  Father.  But  that 
the  eternal,  God-like  nature  of  the  Son  is  pre- 
supposed by  the  statement,  appears  clearly 
from  this,  that  such  a  comparison  of  himself 
with  God  by  any  created  being  would  be 
folly,  bordering  on  blasphemy." 

29.  And  now  I  have  told  you  before, 
etc.  How  wise  and  loving  this  foresight  of 
Jesus !  How  perfectly  were  the  means  adapted 
to  secure  the  end!  For  the  time  would  soon 
come  when  the  disciples'  recollection  of  this 
hour,  and  of  the  words  now  spoken  and  pres- 
ently fulfilled,  would  strengthen  their  faith. 
And  what  they  needed  more  than  all  else,  to 
qualify  them  for  their  great  mission,  was  an 
increase  of  faith.  '■'Relieve  in  God;  believe 
also  in  me."  (ver.  i.)  That,  when  it  is  come 
to  pass,  ye  might  (or,  may)  believe.  The 
belief  here  contemplated  is  belief  in  God,  and 
in  Jesus  Christ,  the  Sent  of  God,  or  belief  as 
comprehensive  as  the  gospel  requires— though 
its  proximate  object  would  naturally  be  Christ 
himself. 

30.  I  will  not  talk  (or,  no  more  speak) 
much  Avith  you.  A  few  last  words  only  can 
be  said  before  the  dreadful  conflict  begins; 
and  by  reminding  them  of  this  fact,  he  rivets 
their  attention  more  closely  to  what  he  says. 
It  is  a  more  emphatic  "verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you."  For  the  prince  of  this  (or, 
the^)  world  cometh.  The  Avorld  is  here 
put  for  the  unbelieving  and  far  greater  part 
of  mankind— the  part  which  seems  to  outward 
observation  well-nigh  the  whole;  and  the 
prince  of  the  world  is  the  same  ungodly  be- 

1  We  omit  this,  before  world,  in  deference  to  the 
oldest  manuscripts. 


ing  who  is  described  by  Paul  as  "the  prince 
of  the  power  of  the  air — ^the  spirit  that  now 
worketh  in  the  children  of  disobedience." 
(Eph.  2:2.)  Jesus  therefore  intends  to  repre- 
sent Judas  Iscariot  (comp.  13:  2,  27),  and  all 
who  are  seeking  his  life,  as  being  influenced 
in  their  course  by  the  worst  of  beings.  In  them 
and  by  them,  Satan  renews  his  assiiult  upon  the 
Son  of  man.  The  words  of  Jesus  have  also 
been  thought  to  afford  some  intimation  of  a 
more  inward  and  terrible  approach  of  the 
wicked  one,  accompanying  this  outward  as- 
sault, and  serving  to  explain  the  agony  of  the 
garden;  but  on  the  method  of  Satan's  com- 
ing we  are  left  to  conjecture,  except  so  far  sis 
it  may  be  indicated  by  the  language  concern- 
ing Judas,  and  by  what  is  said  of  the  suff'er- 
ing  of  soul  endured  by  Christ.  And  hath 
nothing  in  me — i.  e.,  nothing  that  pertains 
to  him  as  prince  of  the  world.  Josus  is,  in  no 
respect,  in  no  degree,  subject  to  him.  This  is 
probably  the  most  obvious  and  satisfactory  in- 
terpretation of  the  words.  But  they  imply, 
if  they  do  not  formally  express,  the  sinless- 
ness  of  Jesus.  The  fact  that  nothing  in  Jesus 
belongs  to  the  prince  of  the  world,  sliows  that 
he  has  never  been  under  the  moral  contr;  1  of 
that  evil  being.  As  the  reign  of  that  prince  is 
the  reign  of  a  rebel  against  God,  over  a  world 
in  rebellion  against  God,  Christ  is  independ- 
ent of  the  prince,  because  he  is  morally'  sepa- 
rate from  the  world.  The  words  in  me  are 
emphatic,  and  antithetical  to  the  world.  Je- 
sus thus  intimates  that  what  he  is  about  to 
suffer  he  will  not  suffer  because  Satan  has  any 
authority  over  him,  or  power  to  bring  this  evil 
upon  him,  against  his  own  will. 

31.  But  that  the  Avorld  may  know,  etc. 
There  are  three  possible  ways  of  con.?truing 
this  verse,  viz.:  (1)  "  But  that  the  world  may 
know  that  I  love  the  Father,  and  [that]  as  the 
Father  gave  me  commandment,  even  so  I  do : 
Arise,  let  us  go  hence" — to  encounter  death  ; 
the  apodosis  beginning  with  "Arise,"  (2) 
"But  that  the  world  may  know  that  I  love 


Ch.  XV.] 


JOHN. 


295 


CHAPTER   XV. 

AM  the  true  viuc,  and  my  Father  is  the  husband-  |    1      I  am  the  true  vine,  and  my  Father  is  the  hus- 


2  "Every  branch  in  me  that  beareth  not  fruit  he 


2  bandnian.    Every   branch  in  me  that   beareth   nor 
fruit,   he  taketh   it  away :    and  every  branch  that 


I  Matt.  15  :  13. 


the  Father,  even  as  the  Father  gave  me  com- 
iiiandment,  so  I  do.  Arise,  let  us  go  hence" 
— the  apodisis  beginning  with  "even  as"  (ical 
Ka»£K),  and  being  expressed  by  the  words  so  I 
do.  (3)  "  But  [I  suffer  what  I  suffer  through 
the  coming  of  the  prince  of  the  world]  that 
the  world  may  know  that  I  love  the  Father, 
and  [that]  as  the  Father  gave  me  command- 
ment, even  so  I  do.  Arise,  let  us  go  hence." 
The  simplicity  of  style  .which  characterizes 
this  Gospel  is  an  objection  to  the  first  two  con- 
structions, while  the  third  has  been  exempli- 
fied more  than  once  already — {e.  g.,  at  13:  18.) 
We  therefore  accept  this  as  probably  correct. 
Yet  the  meaning  of  the  verse  will  remain  very 
nearlj'  the  same,  whatever  view  may  betaken 
of  the  construction.  Christ  declares  his  pur- 
pose to  meet  the  conflict  before  him,  in  order 
that  the  world  may  know  his  love  and  obedi- 
ence to  the  Father.  It  is  a  free  act  of  his  own ; 
he  has  power  to  lay  down  his  life,  and  to  take 
it  again ;  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  the  will  of 
his  Father  that  he  should  give  his  life  for  the 
world;  and  in  no  other  way  can  he  so  clearly 
reveal  to  the  world  his  love  to  the  Father,  as 
by  making  his  soul  an  offering  for  sinners. 
Arise,  let  us  go  hence.  These  words  were 
doubtless  followed  by  corresponding  action. 
Yet  it  has  been  said:  "They  do  not,  indeed, 
rise.  An  interesting  fact  [?],  to  be  acoounted 
for  only  by  the  deep,  vivid  effect  produced 
upontheir  minds  by  the  Lord's  previous  words 
and  deeds,  and  by  his  whole  bearing,  (Comp. 
Luke  24:  29.)  They  were  riveted  to  the  spot, 
and  seemed  unable  to  move — as  if  they  would 
hear  more.  To  this  silent  invitation,  the 
Lord  yields,  and  proves  that  he  had  not  yet 
said  the  best  he  could  s^ay — more  of  heaven 
now  drops  from  his  lips  than  his  followers  had 
ever  tasted  before."— ("The  Gospels  from  the 
Babbinical  Point  of  View,"  by  Rev.  G.  Wil- 
don  Pierttz,  m.  a.,  p.  23.)  Only  there  is  no 
satisfactory  evidence  of  the  alleged  fact — it  is 
rather  an  inference  from  the  writer's  neglect 
to  state  where  they  went  upon  leaving  the 
room. 


Ch.  15.  If  we  suppose  that  the  word  arise 
(11:31),  was  followed  by  the  act  of  rising  up 
from  a  sitting  posture,  we  must,  for  the  same 
reason,  suppose  that  the  words,  let  us  go 
hence,  were  followed  by  the  act  of  leaving 
the  room  where  the  Lord's  Supper  had  been 
instituted.  Hence  the  following  discourse 
and  prayer  were  not,  we  think,  uttered  in  the 
"guest  chamber,"   or    "large   upper  room" 

(Mi.rkit:  15;  Luke22:  12).       But    it     is     impossible     tO 

ascertain  where  they  were  uttered.  On  their 
way  to  Gethsemane,  Jesus  and  his  disciples 
may  have  turned  aside  into  the  temple  courts, 
and  there,  in  the  late  and  silent  evening 
hour,  the  sacred  words  of  the  three  following 
chapters  may  have  been  spoken ;  and,  if  so, 
the  golden  vine  upon  the  gates  (see  Jos. 
"Ant."  XV.  IL  3;  "B.  J."  v.  .5.  4)  may  have 
suggested  the  parable  or  illustration  used 
(15:1-8)  by  the  Lord.  But  it  is  also  barely 
2iossible  (see  on  18:  1)  that  the  words  of  these 
chapters  were  spoken  outside  the  city  and 
temple,  as  Jesus  paused,  with  his  disciples,  in 
sight  of  some  noble  vine  on  the  hill-side 
sloping  down  to  the  Kedron.  This,  however, 
is  far  from  probable.  ^ 

1-3.  The  Union  Between  Christ  and 
Christians  Similar  to  That  Between  a 
Vine  and  its  Branches. 

1.  I  am  the  true  vine.  The  true  vine  (i 
anTreAo?  i)  aKriBivri)  is  One  that  realizes  perfectly 
the  idea  of  a  vine.  (Comp.  Notes  on  1 :  9;  4: 
23;  6:  32).  In  this  brief  statement,  the  word 
vine  does  not  mean  the  mere  vine  stock,  but 
the  stock  with  its  branches.  And  my  Father 
is  the  husbandman.  That  is,  the  vine 
planter  and  vine  dresser.  "He  it  is,"  says 
Godet,  "who  attends  to  the  preservation  of 
this  divine  organism,  and  guides  its  develop- 
ment on  earth.  While  Jesus  is  the  inner  life 
of  it,  the  Father  gives  it  providential  care 
and  culture.  .  .  What  is  here  said  is  not  in- 
consistent with  the  view  that  this  work, 
ascribed  to  the  Father,  is  accomplished 
through  the  agency  of  Christ.  Only  the 
figure  employed  forbids  a  reference  to  this 
aspect  of  the  truth." 

2.  Every    branch.      Jesus  here  refers  to 


296 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XV. 


taketh  away:  and  every  branch  that  beareth  fruit,  he 
purgeth  it,  that  it  way  bring  forth  more  fruit. 

3  "Now  ye  are  clean  through  the  word  which  I  have 
spoken  unto  you. 

4  ''Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you.    As  the  branch  can- 


beareth  fruit,  he  cleanseth  it,  that  it  may  bear  more 

3  fruit.    Already  ye  are  clean  because  of  the  word 

4  which  I  have  spoken  unto  you.    Abide  in  me,  and 


ach.  13:  10;  17  :  17  ;  Eph.  5:  26;  1  Pet.  1 :  22 b  Col.  1:  23;  1  John  2  :  6. 


processes  well  known  to  his  disciples.  For 
two  operations  are  included  in  the  proper  cul- 
ture of  the  vine — (1)  that  of  removing  sterile 
branches,  and  (2)  that  of  cleaning  fruitful 
branches.  The  latter  is  accomplished  by  tak- 
ing from  the  fruitful  branches  useless  shoots, 
in  order  that  the  sap  may  concentrate  in  the 
shoots  which  are  loaded  with  clusters.  Thus, 
"to  him  that  hath  is  given,  and  from  him 
that  hath  not  is  taken  away  even  that  which 
he  hath."  In  like  manner,  two  classes  of 
persons  are  connected  with  Christ — (1)  those 
who  are  united  with  him  by  intellect  and  pro- 
fession merely,  and  (2)  those  who  are  united 
with  him  in  heart  also.  Those  of  the  first 
class  may  exhibit  the  form  of  godliness,  but 
they  know  nothing  of  its  power.  They 
promise,  but  do  not  perform;  they  bear 
leaves,  but  not  fruit;  they  are  like  the  fig  tree 
which  the  Lord  cursed.  At  death,  if  not 
before,  the  tie  which  unites  such  persons  with 
Christ  will  be  sundered.  It  is  frequently 
broken  in  this  life,  by  tribulation  or  persecu- 
tion, which  the  nominal  Christian  finds  it 
difiicult  to  bear;  or  by  the  cares  of  this  world 
and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  which  turn 
away  the  mere  professor  from  even  thoughts 
of  God.  It  is  sure  to  be  severed,  first 
or  last.  But  those  of  the  second  class,  being 
united  with  Christ  by  love,  are  to  be  disci- 
plined with  a  view  to  abundant  fruitfulness 
in  the  divine  life.  For  by  fruit,  is  here 
meant  spiritual  life  and  action ;  or,  in  the 
words  of  Paul,  "love,  joy,  peace,  long- 
suflfering,  gentleness;  kindness,  goodness, 
faith,  meekness,  temperance."  (Gai.5:22,) 
To  secure  this  blessed  fruit,  they  may  be 
stripped  of  worldlj'  possessions,  subjected 
to  heavy  burdens,  exposed  to  severe  trials, 
made  to  drink  the  cup  of  their  Master,  so 
that  it  may  be  truly  said  of  them,  "They 
that  are  Christ's  have  crucified  the  flesh,  with 
the  affections  (or,  passions)  and  lusts."  (Gai. s. 
24.)  The  eleven  were  soon  to  know  a  great 
deal  about  this  cleansing  process,  and,  puri- 
fied by  it,  were  to  become  zealous  of  good 
works.     Yet  it  is  not  by  means  of  sufiiering 


or  burden-bearing  only,  that  the  fruitful 
branches,  the  true  friends  of  Clirist,  are  pre- 
pared for  their  work.  The  knife  bj'  which 
they  are  pruned  of  useless  leaves  and  shoots, 
is  often  the  pure  word  of  God. 

3.  NoAV  (already)  ye  are  clean  through 
{because  of)  the  word,  etc.  This  is  a  timely 
word  of  encouragement,  assuring  the  disciples 
that  they  were  recognized  by  their  Lord,  not 
as  sterile,  but  as  fruitful  branches.  The 
Greek  adjective  translated  clean  (ica?apoO,  is  a 
kin  to  the  verb  "cleanseth"  (icaJaipei)  in  ver.  2, 
which,  however,  is  translated  purgeth,  in  the 
Common  Version  ;  and  it  means  in  this  place, 
those  who  are  prepared  to  bear  fruit,  like  vine 
branches  made  clean  by  pruning.  Yet,  Jesus 
does  not  intend  to  pronounce  the  eleven 
morally  perfect,  or,  indeed,  perfectly  quali- 
fied for  their  work.  Their  ambition  and 
worldliness  had  been  too  recently  manifested 
to  allow  of  this  interpretation  of  his  language. 
But  he  does  mean  to  say  that  they  were  in 
spiritual  union  with  himself;  that  they  were 
connected  with  him,  not  merely  by  intellec- 
tual conviction,  but  also  by  faith  and  love,  as 
aflfections  of  the  heart;  and  that  by  the  influ- 
ence of  his  word,  manj'  of  their  errors,  preju- 
dices, and  selfish  aims  had  been  removed,  so 
that  there  was  i;e*i^on  to  expect  from  them 
spiritual  fruit.  More  than  this  the  word 
clean,  as  here  used,  cannot  be  said  to  imply. 
But  this  recognition  was  enough  to  cheer  tlie 
hearts  of  the  disciples. 

It  is  also  noticeable  that  they  are  said  to  be 
clean  through,  or  because  of  the  word  which 
Christ  had  spoken  to  them.  Christian  truth 
is  therefore  employed  by  the  Most  High  in 
qualifying  his  people  for  service,  and  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  only  the  inward  source  of  life  to 
his  own,  but,  in  his  Father's  name  and  behalf, 
he  teaches,  disciplines,  and  purifies  them  for 
holy  conduct  and  usefulness  among  men. 
(Comp.  8:  31,  32;  Eph.  5:  26;  James  1 :  18.) 

4,  5.  Continuance  and  Application  of 
THE  Pakable. 

4.  Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  Jesus  as- 
sumes the  existence  of  a  most  intimate  fellow- 


Ch.  XV.] 


JOHN. 


297 


not  bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine;  no 
more  can  ye,  except  ye  abide  iu  me. 

5  I  aiu  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches.  He  that 
abidetli  in  uie,  and  I  in  liiui,  the  same  l)riu^etb 
forth  much  "fruit;  for  without  me  ye  can  do  noth- 
ing. 


I  in  you.  As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  it- 
self, except  it  abide  in  the  vine;  so  neither  can  ye, 
5  except  ye  abide  in  me.  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are 
the  branches:  He  that  abitlclb  in  me,  and  I 
iu   him,   the  same   beareth  much   fruit:    for  apart 


s  Uos.  14:  8;  Phil.  1  :  11  ;  4:  13. 


ship  between  himself  and  his  disciples.  He 
implies  that  its  continuance  is  dependent  on 
their  action,  as  well  as  his  own.  And  he  ex- 
horts them  to  cherish  and  preserve  this  fel- 
lowship, with  the  promise,  if  they  do,  of 
maintaining  it  himself.  (Weiss  interprets  the 
clause,  "and  I  in  you,"  as  a  promise  equiva- 
lent to,  "and  I  will  abide  in  you."  Westcott 
says  that  "both  parts  are  imperative  in  con- 
ception: Do  ye  abide  in  me  .  .  .  and  let  me 
abide  in  you."  Improbable.  Godet,  bet- 
ter: "Jesus  suppresses  the  verb  in  the  clause, 
'and  I  in  you,'  because  the  second  act  is  con- 
ceived of  as  the  immediate  and  necessary 
consequence  of  the  first ;  if  the  first  is  accom- 
plished, the  second  cannot  fiiil  to  be  realized.") 
Thus  he  recognizes  the  moral  freedom  of  his 
disciples  in  matters  pertaining  to  their  salva- 
tion— a  point  which  could  not  be  represented 
in  his  similitude.  So  it  must  often  be.  For 
no  metaphor,  simile,  parable,  or  allegory,  bor- 
rowed from  the  realm  of  nature,  can  be  per- 
fect in  relation  to  spiritual  beings.  It  would 
be  absurd  to  exhort  the  branches  to  abide  in 
the  vine.  But  the  union  between  Christ  and 
his  disciples,  the  members  af  his  spiritual 
body,  is  voluntary',  reciprocal,  progressive. 
It  is  therefore  natural  for  Jesus  to  urge  his 
followers  to  avoid  everything  that  might  tend 
to  separate  them  in  spirit  from  him,  and  to  do 
everything  in  their  power  to  preserve  and  in- 
crease their  fellowship  with  him.  As  the 
branch,  etc.  Every  one  knows  that  the 
branch  cannot  bear  fruit  from  itself  alone,  or 
"by  any  power  of  its  own  which  it  may  have 
apart  from  the  vine." — Grotius.  It  can  bear 
fruit  only  by  abiding  in  the  vine,  and  draw- 
ing vital  force  from  the  stock.  Godet  consid- 
ers the  clause,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine, 
as  an  explanation  of  the  words  from  itself— 
thus:  "As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  from 
itself" — i.  e.,  "if  it  abide  not  in  the  vine." 
That  is  to  say,  bearing  fruit  from  itself,  and 
bearing  fruit  when  not  in  the  vine,  are  equiv- 
alent expressions.  No  more  (or,  so  neither) 
can  ye,  except  ye  abide  in  me.  Though 
the  connection  between  Christ  and  his  own  is 


voluntary,  and  spiritual,  consisting  in  mutual 
love,  their  dependence  upon  him  to  whom 
they  are  thus  united,  and  therefore  upon  the 
conservation  of  the  union,  is  every  whit  as 
absolute  as  is  that  of  the  vine  branch  upon  the 
vine.  A  good  reason,  surely,  for  the  exhorta- 
tion in  the  former  part  of  the  verse!  Union 
with  Christ  is  indispensable  to  usefulness  in 
his  service.  The  stream  must  draw  from  the 
fountain,  or  it  will  become  dry.  How  closely 
would  Jesus  bind  the  disciples  to  his  heart! 
How  sweetly  does  he  urge  them  to  drink  of 
the  fountain  of  his  love!  He  is  more  tlian 
ready  to  take  these  poor,  weak,  unworthy, 
trembling  followers  to  himself,  and  fill  their 
entire  being  with  light  and  peace.  Could  such 
a  man  as  John  ever  forget  such  an  appeal  as 
this? 

5.  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches. 
According  to  this  Gospel,  Jesus  often  repeats 
the  cardinal  words  or  sentences  of  a  discourse, 
thus  fixing  them  more  deeply  in  the  minds  of 
his  hearers.  Yet  he  almost  always  repeats 
with  some  variation  or  addition.  So  here 
the  words  used  are  a  resumption  of  the  theme 
(ver.  i),  with  an  express  statement,  not  given 
there,  that  his  disciples  are  represented  by 
the  branches.  He  that  abideth  in  me, 
and  I  in  him.  Observe  that  Christ  does  not 
restrict  his  view  to  the  eleven.  For  he  that 
abideth  in  me  is  equivalent  to  "everyone 
that  abideth  in  me."  The  language  of  Jesus 
refers  to  Christians  of  every  age  and  nation. 
Notice,  also,  that  he  speaks  of  the  individual, 
not  of  the  church.  Notice,  again,  that  the  in- 
dwelling is  mutual,  like  that  of  verse  4.  The 
same  (or,  this  one)  brin^jeth  forth  (lit.,  bear- 
eth) much  fruit.  By  the  present  tense  of  the 
verb,  the  fruit-bearing  is  described,  not  as  a 
single  act,  performed  once  for  all,  but  as  a 
process  no  less  enduring  than  the  union  on 
which  it  depends.  Note,  also,  the  expression, 
much  fruit.  The  man  who  abides  in  Christ, 
and  in  whom  Christ  abides  by  his  Spirit,  he  it 
is  who  bears,  not  a  little  fruit — a  small  cluster, 
scarce  discernible  amid  the  leaves — but  much 
fruit — grapes  of  Eschol,   in  heavy  clusters; 


298 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XV. 


6  If  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  «  he  is  cast  forth  as 
a  branch,  and  is  withered ;  and  men  gather  them, 
and  cast  Ihem  into  the  tire,  and  they  are  burned. 


6  from  me  ye  can  do  nothing.  If  a  man  abide  not 
in  me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered ; 
and  they  gather  them,  and   cast   them   into   the 


a  Matt.  3:  10;  7:  19. 


he  it  is,  and  he  alone,_  whose  life  is  a  great 
blessing  to  the  world.  But  do  all  who  abide 
in  Clirist  fulfill  this  saying?  Do  not  some  of 
this  class  bear  very  little  fruit,  and  .some  very 
poor  fruit?  Does  not  Paul  teach  that  there 
are  believers  whose  work  will  not  stand  the 
test  of  fire,  even  though  they  themselves  will 
be  saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire?  (icor. s:  is.)  First, 
it  is  certain  that  not  all  true  Christians  are 
Peters,  or  Johns,  or  Pauls,  or  Luthers,  or  Cal- 
vins,  orJudsons,  in  ability  and  devotion  com- 
bined. But  ability  may  be  left  out  of  the 
account  in  speaking  of  fruitfulness  in  Chris- 
tian life.  For  the  poor  widow  who  cast  into 
the  treasury  of  the  Lord  but  two  mites,  is  said 
to  have  cast  in  more  than  all  the  rich,  because 
they  gave  out  of  their  abundance,  and  she  gave 
out  of  her  deep  poverty.  By  this  rule  of 
judging,  many  Christians  who  seem  to  men 
weak  and  comparatively  useless,  bear  much 
fruit.  Secondly,  it  is  certain  that  not  all  Chris- 
tians are  equally  devout.  There  are  some  who 
make  very  slow  progress  in  ever3'thing  tliat 
pertains  to  godliness.  So  weak  is  their  faith, 
so  languid  their  aflTection,  and  so  irresolute 
their  conduct,  that  they  seem  to  be  in  constant 
danger  of  falling  away  from  Christ.  These, 
surely,  cannot  be  said  to  bear  much  fruit. 
Even  the  gracious  judgment  of  the  Lord  will 
condemn  their  slothfulness  and  inefficiency, 
because  they  do  not  use  the  talent  entrusted 
to  them.  Thirdly,  there  are  degrees  of  union 
with  Christ,  and  spiritual  fruit  increases  as 
union  with  him  becomes  more  intimate. 
When  the  believer  and  his  Saviour  are  one  in 
feeling,  desire,  and  aim,  in  so  far  at  least  as 
the  disciple  is  let  into  the  counsels  of  his  Mas- 
ter, then  will  the  fruits  of  holiness  abound  in 
his  life.  Only  as  one  is  united  with  Christ, 
does  he  bear  fruit;  and  in  proportion  to  the 
completeness  of  the  union,  will  be  the  abund- 
ance of  fruit.  Being  in  Christ,  is  the  condition 
of  bearing  much  fruit.  This  is  the  principal 
thought,  and  Jesus  does  not  pause  to  explain 
the  qualifications  or  limitations  of  it.  For 
■without  {apart  from)  me  ye  can  do  noth- 
ing. An  explicit  statement  of  the  negative 
implied  in  the  previous  clause,  by  giving  the 
reason  for  that  implied  negative.    "This,  and 


no  other,  beareth  much  fruit,"  "because  apart 
from  me  ye  can  do  nothing  " — i.  e.,  no  Chris- 
tian work,  no  deed  acceptable  to  God.  Hence 
this  saying  has  no  direct  reference  to  the  abil- 
ity or  inability  of  unrenewed  men  to  obey  the 
moral  law,  or  to  believe  in  Christ.  Its  primary 
application  is  to  those  who  are  in  Christ.  Yet 
it  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conviction  that  it  is 
equally  true  of  all  men  ;  and  therefore  that 
nothing  acceptable  to  God  can  be  done  by  any 
person  who  is  still  out  of  Christ.  "  I  hear  a 
voice  of  song  and  sweet  content  within  my 
text:  'Without  nie  ye  can  do  nothing.'  I 
pick  up  my  text  and  hold  it  to  my  ear,  as 
many  a  child  has  held  a  shell;  and  as  within 
tlie  shell  the  child  hears  the  rolling  of  the  sea 
.  .  .  so  within  my  text  I  hear  a  sweet,  sweet 
sound.  Put  it  to  your  ears  and  try  it :  '  With- 
out me  ye  can  do  nothing.'  Lord,  what  is 
there  that  I  want  to  do  without  thee?  Lord, 
thou  hast  tied  and  tethered  metothj-self  by  this 
blessed  text,  which  is  so  sweetly  bitter,  so  in- 
tensely precious  to  my  heart,  when  I  come  to 
get  into  its  depths.  What  could  I  want  to  do 
without  thee  ?  Suppose  there  were  something 
I  could  do  without  thee  !  then  there  would  be 
a  little  crown  for  my  head ;  but  now  I  can  do 
nothing  withoirt  thee.  Then  there  is  one  great 
crown  for  thy  brow,  and  thou  shalt  have  all 
the  glory.  .  .  .  Oh,  God,  we  thank  thee  that 
we  can  do  nothing  witiiout  Christ,  for  of  all 
things,  I  should  dread  success  apart  from 
Christ."  —  C.  H.  Spurgeon. 

6.  Consequence  of  Not  Abiding  in 
Christ. 

6.  If  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  etc.  Does 
this  refer  to  one  who  has  been  in  vital,  fruit- 
bearing  union  with  Christ?  Or  to  one  who, 
like  the  sterile  branch  of  ver.  2,  is  only  united 
to  Christ  by  a  public  profession,  resting  on  a 
merely  intellectual  belief?  Even  if  the 
former  is  taken  to  be  the  correct  view  of 
Christ's  language  here,  the  premise  is  hypo- 
thetical, and  may  have  been  assumed,  not  as 
actual, or  even  probable,  butsimply  as^ossiA/e. 
For,  if  so  deplorable  an  act  is  possible,  it 
ought  to  be  prevented  by  a  revelation  of  the 
dreadful  result  that  must  follow  its  becoming 
actual.     But  the  latter  view  may  be  correct. 


Ch.  XV.]                                          JOHN.                                                      299 

7  If  ye  abide  in  me,  and  my  words  abide  in  you, 
«  ye  sliall  ask  wiiat  ye  will,  and  it  siiall  be  done  unto 
you. 

7  fire,  and   they  are  burned.    If  ye    abide    in    me, 
and  my   words  abide  in  you,  ask  wliatsoever  ye 

a  ver.  16  ;  ch.  14 :  13,  14  ;  16 :  23. 

Says  Weiss:  "  Since  fruit-bearing,  according 
to  ver.  4,  5,  depends  on  abiding  in  Jesus,  the 
Lord  here  speaks  of  the  doom  of  the  unfruit- 
ful branch,  which,  according  to  ver.  2,  the 
vine-dresser  cuts  off.  If  Luther  insists  against 
Lampe,  that  one  can,  therefore,  have  been 
actually  (spiritually)  in  Christ,  and  yet  have 
fallen  away,  it  is  very  doubtful,  according  to 
1  John  2:  19,  wiiether  this  Evangelist  would 
have  regarded  a  'being  in  Christ,'  which 
was  not  followed  by  an  'abiding  in  hirn,'  as 
real."  He  is  cast  forth  as  a  (or,  the) 
branch,  and  is  withered.  By  a  branch, 
must  be  understood  the  unfruitful  bianch, 
which  is  here  represented  as  being  cast  out  of 
the  vinej^ard  (ef«o,  outside — i.  e.,  of  the  vine- 
3'ard),  where  it  withers  away  and  becomes 
dry.  But  why  are  the  Greek  verbs  (e/3A>i?7) 
and  i^rjpaveri)  in  the  past  tense  (aorist),  though 
translated  as  if  they  were  in  the  present? 
Meyer,  Alford,  Godet  (last  ed.),  Watkins, 
"Weiss,  Abbott,  account  for  it  by  supposing 
that  the  point  of  view  assumed  by  Jesus  is 
that  of  the  gathering  together  and  casting 
into  the  fire  of  unbelievers  at  the  last  judg- 
ment. "Jesus  places  himself  at  the  point  of 
time  when  the  last  judgment  is  being  carried 
ijito  effect,  when  those  who  fell  away  from 
him  are  gathered  together  and  cast  into  the 
fire,  after  having  been  previously  cast  out  of 
his  community,  and  become  withered." — 
Meyer.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  best  explana- 
tion of  the  tense  of  the  verbs,  which  might 
be  translated  ^''was  cast  out,"  and  ^^  became 
withered."  But  others  hold  that  the  past 
tense  is  here  used  to  express  an  efl'ect  that  fol- 
lows instantly  upon  its  cause.  Thus  West- 
cott:  "This  happens  simultaneously  with  the 
cessation  of  the  vital  union  with  Christ.  .  .  It 
is  an  inevitable  accompaniment  of  the  separa- 
tion." Similarly,  "Winer  (Thayer's  Transl., 
?  40,  5,  6,  p.  277  :  "  The  not  abiding  in  Christ 
has  this  as  its  instantaneous  consequence: 
whoever  has  severed  himself  from  Christ,  re- 
sembles a  branch  broken  off  and  thrown 
away."  (See  also,  Buttmann's  "  Grammar  of 
the  N.  T.  Greek,"  Thayer's  Transl.,  on  the 
Proleptic,  and  the  Gnomic  Aorist,  ^  137,  4,  8). 
And  men  (or,  they),  gather  them,  and  cast 


them  into  the  fire,  and  they  are  burned. 

This  imagery  is  borrowed  from  the  course 
taken  with  fruitless  branches,  and  is  not  to  be 
pressed  as  literally  applicable  to  unspiritual 
men.  But  without  insisting  on  the  literal 
sense  of  these  words,  it  is  to  be  maintained 
without  wavering,  and  on  the  authority  of 
such  teaching,  that  the  doom  of  all  who  are 
found  out  of  Christ  at  the  last  day  will  be 
very  dreadful.  "The  Lord  leaves  the  image, 
just  as  it  is,  to  work  its  proper  effect."— IFes^- 
cott.  And  the  reality  which  calls  for  the  u>e 
of  such  an  image,  must  be  something  from 
which  a  rational  being  ought  to  shrink  with 
horror;  something  more  terrible  than  aught 
else  in  the  universe,  save  the  sin  which  merits 
this  awful  doom.  A  reader  of  Scripture  can- 
not too  seriousl3'  bear  in  mind  that,  for  every 
figurative  expression  of  God's  word,  there 
must  be  a  corresponding  reality. 

7, 8.  The  Eesult  of  Union  with  Christ 
Ke-affirmed. 

7.  The  condition  here  stated  diflTers  in  form, 
but  scarcely  in  substance,  from  that  recog- 
nized in  verse  5.  For  it  is  said  there:  "He 
that  abideth  in  nie,  and  lin  him,"  while  it  is 
said  here:  If  ye  abide  in  me,  and  my 
words  abide  in  you.  But  Christ  and  bis 
vi^ords  are  inseparable  in  the  believer's  heart. 
By  his  words  Christ  presents  himself  to  his 
people.  As  he,  the  Eternal  "Word,  is  the 
revelation  of  the  Father,  presenting  the 
Father  to  us,  so  his  word,  the  sum  of  his 
sayings,  is  a  revelation  of  himself— a  reve- 
lation by  which  he  presents  to  us  his  in- 
most nature  ;  and,  therefore,  by  retaining  his 
word,  and  meditating  upon  it,  we  retain  him 
in  our  minds  and  hearts.  And  this  is  pre- 
supposed in  acceptable,  prayer.  "When  this 
condition  is  fulfilled,  prayer  will  be  accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  Christ,  and  will  be  surely 
answered.  As  Godet  remarks:  "A  prayer 
so  inspired  is  a  daughter  of  heaven  ;  it  is  the 
promise  of  God  transformed  into  a  supplica- 
tion; and  upon  this  condition  the  answer  is 
certain."  It  may  be  remarked  also,  (1)  that 
what  ye  will,  is  by  position  emphatic,  in- 
dicating the  freedom  of  the  believer's  choice 
as  long  as  it  accords  with  the  teaching  of 


300 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XV 


8  «  Herein  is  my  Father  glorified,  that  ye  bear  much 
fruit;  'so  shall  ye  be  uiy  disciples. 

9  As  the  Father  hath  loved  me,  so  have  I  loved  you  : 
continue  ye  in  my  love. 

10  <:  If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye  shall  abide  in 
my  love ;  even  as  I  have  kept  my  Father's  command- 
ments, and  abide  in  his  love. 


8  will,  anJ  it  shall  be  done  unto  you.     Herein  lis  uiy 
Fatlier  glorified,  2  that  ye  bear  much  Iruit;   aud  t,o 

9  shall  ye  be  my  disciples.    Even  as  the  Father  hath 
loved  me,  I  also  have  loved  you:   abide   ye  in  my 

10  love.    If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye  shall  abide 
in  my  love;  even  as  I  have  kept  my  Father's  com- 


aMa.u.  5:  16;  Phil.  1:   11 i  cb.  8  :  31 ; 


13:  35 c  cb.14:  15,  21,23. 1   Or, was 

muchfrv.it,  and  be  my  disciples. 


...2  Mauy  aucieut  authorities  re:Ld,   that  y     hear 


Christ.  (2)  That  the  best  text  reads :  ask,  in 
the  imperative,  instead  of  ye  shall  ask,  in 
the  future — what  (or,  whatsoever)  ye  will  ask, 
etc.  (3)  That  the  words,  and  it  shall  be 
done  unto  you,  represents  an  expression 
meaning,  literally,  and  it  shall  come  to  pass 
to  you,  or,  become  yours. 

8.  Herein  {in  this)  is  my  Father  glori- 
fied, that,  etc.  If  the  word  that,  {'iva)  at 
the  beginning  of  the  second  clause,  has  its 
usual  signification,  viz.,  in  order  that,  the 
word  this  {in  this),  must  refer  to  what  is  said 
in  verse  7 — i-  e.,  to  God's  answering  the  pray- 
ers of  tho.se  who  abide  in  Christ.  The  Father 
is  glorified  in  answering  their  prayers,  for  he 
gives  these  answers  in  order  that  they  may 
bear  spiritual  fruit;  and  such  fruit  is  always 
to  the  glorj'  of  his  name.  This  fruit  is  in 
reality  the  life  which  men  ought  to  live — a 
life  of  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  a  life  of  devout  love  to  God,  and 
of  beneficent  love  to  men.  But  it  is  possible 
that  the  word  this  looks  forward  to  the  latter 
part  of  the  verse,  beginning  with  that,  (iW) ; 
and,  if  we  assume  this  to  be  the  case,  we  do 
not  change  the  general  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage, though  we  fail  to  connect  this  verse  as 
closely  as  before  with  the  seventh,  and  give  a 
less  usual  meaning  to  the  Greek  word  trans- 
lated that.  The  tense  of  the  verb  which  is 
here  rendered  is  glorified,  must  be  either  the 
proleptical  or  the  gnomic  aorist;  if  prolep- 
tical,  it  denotes  what  is  to  be  true  henceforth, 
when  the  process  described  in  verse  7  is  re- 
alized; \f  gnomic,  it  denotes  a  result  which  al- 
ways accompanies  or  follows  that  process.  So 
shall  ye  be  my  disciples.  Or,  and  ye  shall 
become  disciples  to  me.  The  latter  rendering  is 
more  exact,  and  is  on  that  account  to  be  pre- 
ferred. Discipleship  is  never  complete,  any 
more  than  knowledge.  It  is  alwaj-s  becom- 
ing truer,  deeper,  more  intimate.  Paul, 
speaking  of  himself,  says:  "The  inward  man 
is  renewed  day  by  day"  (2Cor.  4:i6),  and, 
speaking  of  "the  new  man"  in  the  Colos- 
sians,  declares  that  it  "is  being  renewed  unto 


knowledge  after  the  image  of  him  that  created 
him."  (3: 10, Eev. ver.).  Disciples  to  me — i.e., 
belonging  to  me,  is  a  more  forcible  expression 
in  the  original  than  "disciples  of  me,"  com- 
monly translated  "my  disciples." 

9-17.  Christ's  Love  to  His  Own,  and 
How  It  IS  TO  BE  Ketaiked. 

9.  As  (or,  even  as)  the  Father  hath  loved 
me,  so  have  I  loved  you.  Stronger  lan- 
guage could  not  have  been  used.  Jesus  com- 
pares his  love  with  that  of  the  infinite  God  to 
his  only  begotten  Son,  and  assures  his  disci- 
ples that  they  are  now  in  the  possession  of  his 
love — living  under  its  influence.  The  tense  of 
the  verbs  suggests  that  the  act  of  loving  them 
is  looked  upon  as  one  that  became  complete 
and  perfect  in  the  past.  He  loved  them  with 
a  divine  love  when  he  called  them  to  be  his 
own.  Continue  ye  in  my  love.  That  is, 
abide  in  it;  so  live  that  the  sunshine  of  my 
love  will  surround  you  as  an  atmosphere. 
"  The  exact  form  of  the  phrase,  which  is  found 
here  only  (^  aYan-)}  ^  £>>)),  as  distinguished  from 
that  used  in  the  next  verse  (i)  iydnri  liov),  em- 
phasizes the  character  of  the  love  as  Christ's: 
the  love  that  is  mine — the  love  that  answers  to 
my  nature  and  my  work."-  Westcott.  Is  it  pos- 
sible to  over-estimate  the  privilege  of  abiding 
in  such  love? — a  love  divine,  unchangeable, 
and  stronger  than  death  ?  Must  not  the  hearts 
of  the  eleven  have  thrilled  with  joy  at  these 
words?  As  they  stood  there,  a  listening 
group,  about  their  Master,  with  the  mighty 
sky  above  their  heads,  the  Valley  of  Kedron 
at  their  feet,  and  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane 
at  the  base  of  Olivet  beyond,  must  they  not 
have  felt,  as  never  before,  the  spiritual  glory, 
the  unutterable  love  of  Jesus?  Must  they 
not  have  deemed  his  love  "the  pearl  of  great 
price?" 

10.  If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye 
shall  abide  in  my  love.  Westcott  considers 
this  promise  "the  e.xact  converse  of  that  in  14: 
15":  "If  j'e  love  me,  keep  (or,  ye  will  keep) 
my  commandments.''  It  would  be  so,  if  my 
love  here  meant  "love  to  me" — i.  e.,  if  the 


Ch.  XV.] 


JOHN. 


301 


11  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  that  my 
joy  might  remaiu  in  you,  and  "  that  your  joy  might  be 
full. 

VI  'This  is  my  commandment,  That  ye  love  one 
another,  as  I  have  loved  you. 


11  mandments,  and  abide  in  his  love.    These  things 
have   I  .spolcen  unto  you,  tliut  my  joy  luay  be  in 

12  you,  and  that  your  joy  uiay  be   made  full.     This  is 
my  commandment,  that  ye  love  one  another,  eveu 


a  ch.  16:  24;  17  :  13  ;  1  John  1:4 6  ch.  13  :  24  ;  I  Thess.  4  :  9;  1  Pet.  4:  8;  1  John  3  :  11  j  4:  21. 


love  of  the  disciples  to  Christ,  and  not  his  love 
to  them,  were  intended  by  the  expression, 
"my  love."  But  we  think  it  signifies  his  love 
to  tliem.  Accordingly  Jesus  atfirms  that,  by 
cheerful  obedience  to  him,  his  disciples  will 
continue  to  enjoy  the  blessing  of  his  love.  If 
they  bear  fruit,  they  will  abide  in  the  vine; 
if  they  are  willing  and  obedient,  they  will 
live  in  the  light  of  their  Lord's  countenance. 
Even  as  I  have  kept  my  Father's  com- 
mandments, and  abide  in  his  love.  "  The 
perfect  love  of  complete  devotion  to  God  is 
the  highest  conceivable  good." — Westcott. 
Possibly;  but  it  is  not,  we  think,  the  good 
here  described;  for  his  love,  is  the  Father's 
love  to  the  Son,  not  the  Son's  love  to  the 
Father.  The  perfect  obedience  of  the  Son 
rejoices  with  exceeding  joy  in  the  absolute 
approval  and  love  of  the  Father.  At  the  same 
time  it  is  to  bb  understood  that  obedience 
springs  from  love,  and  is  perfected  by  love. 
"He  that  dwelleth  in  love"  is  the  one  who 
"dwelleth  in  God,  and  God  in  him."  But 
love  expresses  itself  in  acts  of  obedience, 
and  so  obedience  is  here  made  the  condi- 
tion of  abiding  in  the  enjoyment  of  Christ's 
love. 

11.  These  things  .  .  .  that  my  joy  might 
(or,  may)  remain  in  you.  Jiy  the  expression 
my  joy,  Jesus  means  "the  joy  which  I  have" 
—  "the  joy  which  fills  my  heart."  A  joy 
identical  in  kind  vvitli  this  he  would  have  his 
disciples  possess;  and  for  this  reason  he  has 
spoken  to  them  so  tenderly  and  sweetly,  lay- 
ing open  to  them  the  depths  of  his  own  heart. 
But  is  the  joy  of  which  he  speaks  as  my  joy, 
that  of  loving  obedience  to  the  Father's  will, 
or  that  of  knowing  his  Father's  love  to  him- 
self? If  the  former,  the  Christian's  peculiar 
and  chief  joy  should  spring  directly  from  con- 
scious love  and  obedience  to  the  Saviour  ;  if 
the  latter,  the  Christian's  peculiar  and  highest 
joy  should  spring  from  a  grateful  appreciation 
of  the  Saviour's  love  to  him.  The  latter 
seems  to  us  the  true  interpretation  of  Christ's 
language,  and  of  Christian  experience.  The 
joy  of  Christ  arises  from  his  consciousness  of 


his  infinite  Father's  love,  and  the  J03'  of  the 
Christian  from  his  assurance  of  his  divine  Re- 
deemer's love.  And  that  your  joy  might 
(or,  may)  be  full,  or  complete.  The  joy  of 
Christ  was  complete,  but  that  of  his  disciples 
was  yet  imperfect;  and  his  words  had  been 
spoken  for  the  purpose  of  laying  a  foun- 
dation for  the  purest  and  highest  joy  which  it 
was  possible  for  them  to  experience.  Whether 
these  things  include  all  that  Jesus  had  spo- 
ken since  the  Supper,  or  all  that  he  had  said 
for  their  comfort  in  this  chapter  (ver.  1-10),  or 
only  what  is  recorded  in  verses  9  and  10,  is 
doubtful.  Perhaps  the  last  supposition  is 
more  probable  than  either  of  the  others, 
though  there  seems  to  be  no  decisive  objection 
to  the  second. 

12.  This  is  my  commandment,  etc.  That 
is,  the  commandment  "that  answers  to  my 
nature  and  my  mission." — Westcott.  See 
the  exposition  of  13:  34,  where  precisely  the 
same  commandment  is  characterized  as  "a 
new  commandment."  Here,  as  there,  the 
clause,  that  ye  love  one  another,  etc.,  is  a 
statement  of  what  the  command  is,  rather 
than  a  statement  of  the  end  to  be  reached  by  it. 
Yet  the  end  to  be  reached  bj^  a  command  is 
often  expressed,  as  here,  in  and  b^'  the  com- 
mand itself — a  fact  which  accounts  for  the  use 
of  a  conjunction  i'iva)  whose  primary  import 
\s  final,  rather  than  expository.  "The  con- 
tent of  the  command  is  represented  as  the  pur- 
pose of  giving  \t."— Weiss.  "  The  predicates 
after  <vhich  it  i'iva)  stands  are  still,  in  the  main, 
of  such  a  nature  that  the  dependent  clause 
can  be  regarded  as  a  statement  akin  to  a  speci- 
fication of  purpose.'^ — (Buttmann's  "  Gr.  of 
the  N.  T.  Greek,"  p.  2.37.)  As  I  have  loved 
you.  Thus  Christ  makes  his  own  love  to  his 
followers  the  model  and  standard  of  their  love 
to  one  another  ;  for  a  proper  view  of  his  love 
to  them  would  give  them  the  clearest  concep- 
tion possible  of  the  fraternal  love  which  they 
ought  to  cherish,  and  the  best  incentive  to  a 
constant  exercise  of  it.  And  the  degree  of 
his  own  love  to  them  he  now  proceeds  to  sug- 
gest. 


302 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XV. 


13  "Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man 
lay  down  his  lite  lor  his  Iriends. 

14  '  Ye  are  my  t'rieuds,  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I  com- 
niaud  you. 

15  Henceforth  I  call  you  not  servants ;  for  the 
servant  knoweth  not  what  his  lord  doeth:  but  1 
have  called  you  friends;  ''for  all  things  that  I  have 
heard  of  my  Father  1  have  made  known  unto  you. 


13  as  I  have  loved  you.  Greater  love  hath  no  man 
than  this,  that  a  man   lay   down   his   life   for  his 

14  friends.    Ye  are  my   friends,  if   ye  do  the  things 

15  which  I  command  you.  No  longer  do  I  call  you 
1  servants  :  for  the 'servant  knowelh  not  what  his 
lord  doeth:  but  I  have  called  you  Iriends;  lor  all 
things  that  I  heard  from  my  Father  I  have  made 


ch.  17:  26;  Acts  20  :  27 


13.  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this, 
that,  etc., — i.  e.,  there  is  no  love  gresiter  than 
that  which  leads  one  to  give  up  his  life  for 
those  whom  he  loves.  "All  that  a  man  hath 
will  he  give  for  his  life"  (Job  2:  4);  and  an  af- 
fection which  freely  surrenders  life  for  the 
good  of  others  cannot  be  surpassed.  Of  course, 
such  love  commonly  presupposes  intimate 
friendship;  and  as  Jesus  recognizes  his  disci- 
ples as  friends,  his  language  naturally  takes 
the  form  here  given.  "  Love  is  contemplated 
on  the  side  of  him  who  feels  it,  so  that  the  ob- 
jects of  it  are  spoi<en  of  as  friends — that  is, 
'loved  by  him.'  " — Westcott.  "According  to 
Rom.  5:  6-8,  there  is  a  j'et  greater  love  of 
Christ — his  sacrifice  of  himself  for  sinners — 
for  enemies.  And,  in  fact,  the  work  of  Christ's 
love  appears  in  its  full  greatness  only  under 
this  point  of  view.  But  the  love  wherewith 
Christ,  according  to  Paul,  dies  for  sinners,  is 
at  the  same  time  the  love  whereby,  according 
to  John,  he  makes  the  disciples  his  friends. 
Only  because,  full  of  love,  he  thinks  of  sin- 
ners as  his  friends,  does  he  die  for  them."  — 
Lucke.  Dying  love  for  enemies  is  more  sur- 
prising, but  is  it  stronger  than  dying  love  for 
friends?  Godet  finds  an  expression  of  end  or 
purpose  in  the  clause,  that  a  man  lay  down 
his  life  for  his  friends — thus  :  We  say  that 
the  Greek  word  for  thatCii-o)  "retains  the  no- 
tion of  end — the  highest  point  to  which  love 
can  aspire  in  this  relation,  is  that,"  etc.  But 
this  is  changing  the  expression,  and  I  prefer 
the  interpretation  of  Weiss:  ''This  (rauTris) 
does  not  point  back  to  the  love  expressed  by 
'even  as  I  have  loved  you''  (ver.  12),  but  it  looks 
forward,  and  is  explained  by  the  words, 
'that  a  man  lay  down  his  life,'  etc."  (Comp. 
Buttmann'  "  Gr.  of  the  N.  T.  Greek,"  p. 
239.) 

14.  Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  what- 
soever (^=the  things  which)  I  command 
you.  The  pronoun  ye  is  emphatic;  and  the 
meaning  is:  "I  regard  you  and  treat  you  as 
my  friends."    But  there  is  added  a  condition: 


"  If  you  are  obedient  to  me."  It  is  the  Mas- 
ter who  speaks,  though  he  speaks  in  love. 
"What  more  affecting  in  domestic  life  than 
that  a  master,  finding  a  servant  truly  faithful, 
should  give  him  in  the  house  the  rank  and 
title  of  friend?"  —  Godet.  Abraham  is  called 
the  "friend  of  God"  (James 2: 23),  because  God 
treated  him  as  a  friend,  and  admitted  him  to 
the  intimacy  of  friendship.  So  to  be  counted 
a  friend  by  Christ,  is  to  be  honored  with  his 
friendship.  The  following  verse  illustrates 
the  method  of  friendship,  as  distinguished 
from  that  of  lordship. 

15.  Henceforth  (no  longer)  I  call  you  not 
servants,  or,  bond-servants,  as  in  the  margin 
of  the  Revised  Version.  That  they  were  his 
servants  is  true — purchased,  as  would  soon 
appear,  with  his  blood  (comp.  1  Cor.  6:  20; 
7:  '23;  1  Pet.  1:  18;  Rev.  5:9);  and  that  he 
had  spoken  of  them  as  servants  that  very 
evening,  they  knew  (see  13:  14,  IG);  but  a 
faithful  servant  may  be  treated  as  a  friend  or 
a  brother,  and  such  recognition  and  treatment 
would  the  Saviour  accord  to  his  disciples  in 
time  to  come.  For  the  servant  knuweth 
not  what  his  Lord  doeth.  A  glimpse  is 
afforded  by  this  saying  of  the  ordinary  rela- 
tion of  bond-servants  to  their  masters.  The 
former  were  usually  ignorant  of  the  thoughts, 
plans,  or  cares  of  the  latter;  and  their  service 
was  therefore  constrained,  not  willing.  Their 
life  was  separated  from  that  of  their  masters 
by  a  wide  chasm.  Love,  friendship,  fellow- 
ship, were  almost  whollj'  wanting.  All  this 
is  implied  in  the  saying  of  Jesus.  And  though 
his  disciples  must  be  his  servants,  under  in- 
finite obligation  to  do  his  will,  he  was  ready 
to  give  them,  if  faithful,  all  the  blessing  and 
honor  of  his  friendship,  letting  them  into  his 
counsels,  and  communicating  to  them  the 
plans  of  his  love.  But  I  have  called  you 
friends.  The  you  is  emphatic:  "but  you 
have  I  called  friends" — you,  my  disciples,  I 
have  treated  as  friends,  and  not  as  servants, 
unworthy  of  confidence.      For  all   things, 


Ch.  XV.] 


JOHN. 


303 


16  « Ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen  you, 
and  'ordained  you,  that  ye  should  go  and  bring  forth 
fruit,  and  that  your  fruit  should  remain  ;  that  •=  whatso- 
ever ye  shall  ask  of  the  Father  in  my  name,  he  may 
give  it  you. 


16  known  unto  you.  Ye  did  not  choose  me,  but  I  chose 
you,  and  appointed  you,  that  ye  should  go  and  bear 
fruit,  aud  timt  your  fruit  should  ai)idc  :  that  whatso- 
ever ye  shall  ask  of  the  Father  in  my  name,  he  may 


och.  6:  70;  13:  18:  IJohn  4 :  10, 19...  .6  Mati.  28:  19;  Mark  16:  15;  Col.  1 :  6.  ...c  ch.  U:  i:j ;  ver.  7. 


etc.  Or,  as  in  Rev.  Ver.:  '^'^For  all  things  that  I 
heard  from  my  Father  I  made  known  to  you." 
If  this  be  understood  as  relating  to  the  past, 
it  must  be  talceu  with  the  limitation  suggested 
by  16  :  12.  Nothing  had  been  kept  back  from 
them  on  the  principle  and  in  the  spirit  with 
which  the  mere  servant  is  denied  a  knowledge 
of  his  master's  plans  and  reasons,  but  all 
things  which  they  could  receive  without  being 
oifended  had  been  freely  imparted.  The  lim- 
itation was  in  them,  not  in  their  Lord.  But 
the  language  may  be  understood  as  antici- 
patory, descriptive  of  what  would  be  done 
through  the  Spirit.  Yet  even  with  this  inter- 
pretation it  would  still  be  extravagant  to  sup- 
pose that  the  words  all  things  are  to  be  taken 
with  no  restriction  whatever.  Jesus  might 
surely  assume  that  his  disciples  would  under- 
stand him  to  mean  all  things  which  it  was  de- 
sirable and  possible  for  them  to  know.  Taking 
this  view  of  his  meaning,  he  had  already 
taught  them,  by  pregnant  sayings,  or  para- 
bles, all  the  essential  principles  of  the  gospel; 
but  his  teaching  was  to  be  explained  and  con- 
firmed by  his  death  and  resurrection,  as  well 
as  by  the  illumination  of  the  Spirit.  "It  was 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  to  interpret  afterwards, 
little  by  little,  what  he  had  revealed  in  word 
and  life,  implicitly,  once  forall.  (u:26:  i7:26.)" 
—  Westcott. 

16.  Ye  have  not  chosen  (or,  did  not 
choose)  me,  but  I  have  chosen  (or,  chose) 
you,  etc.  The  object  of  what  is  said  in  this 
verse  is  to  increase  the  confidence  of  the  dis- 
ciples in  the  love  of  Christ,  and  so  to  bind 
them  to  him  by  a  trust  that  would  never  die 
out  of  their  hearts.  The  "choosing"  here 
spoken  of  is  generally  referred  to  his  selec- 
tion of  them  for  apostles.  (See  Luke  6:  13). 
But  this  does  not  agree  with  the  first  clause, 
Ye  did  not  choose  me.  What  pertinence  has 
this,  if  he  had  in  mind  their  selection  to  be 
apostles?  How  could  they  choose  him  with 
reference  to  the  apostolate?  But  they  might 
choose  him  as  a  teacher,  even  as  Jewish  pupils 
sometimes  selected  their  teachers;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  might  choose  them  "out  of  the 
world"  (ver.  19),  to  be  his  followers,  or  out  of  a 


larger  company  of  adherents,  to  be  his  con- 
stant attendants.  Hence  we  do  not  think  that 
Jesus  has  special  reference  to  the  apostolic 
office  in  the  words,  but  I  chose  you.  That 
special  reference  may  lie  in  the  next  clause, 
and  ordained  (or,  appointed)  you;  but  we 
are  not  perfectly  certain  that  it  does,  since  all 
the  followers  of  Christ  receive  an  appoint- 
ment from  him  to  bear  spiritual  fruit,  in  this 
way  or  in  that.  Yet  it  is  natural,  on  the 
whole,  to  suppose  that  Jesus  has  some  regard 
to  their  apostolic  mission  in  this  clause.  For 
he  is  speaking  directly  to  the  eleven,  and  their 
Christian  service,  their  fruit  bearing,  consisted 
largely  in  their  apostolic  work.  That  ye 
should  go — i.  e.,  go  away  from  immediate 
personal  connection  with  me  to  a  service  com- 
paratively distinct.  And  bring  forth  fruit — 
resuming  the  figure  of  the  vine  and  its 
branches,  and  therefore  implying  their  con- 
tinued union  with  him  in  their  more  distinct 
work  after  the  Day  of  Pentecost.  And  that 
your  fruit  should  remain.  The  result  of 
their  service  is  to  be  permanent.  A  distinct 
service,  productive  of  good  that  will  endure! 
This  is  the  promise  which  cheers  their  hope 
in  a  trjMng  hour.  "They  were  to  go  into  all 
the  world  and  bring  forth  fruit,  by  their  godly 
lives  and  earnest  teaching  winning  souls  to 
Christ,  founding  churches,  instructing  and 
confirming  believers  in  the  faith.  The  fruit 
they  thus  gathered  in  their  personal  ministry 
was  unto  'eternal  life,'  but  the  fruit  of  their 
labor.s,  as  apostles,  remains  for  us  in  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  New  Testament."  — G.  ]V.  Clark. 
That  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  of  the 
Father  in  my  name,  etc.  See  Notes  on  14: 
13,  and  15:  7.  The  passages  are  very  similar 
to  one  another.  In  the  first,  Jesus  declares 
that  he  himself  will  do  for  his  disciples  what 
they  ask.  In  the  second,  he  says  that  the 
thing  which  they  ask  shall  come  to  pass  for 
them.  And  in  this,  the  third,  he  represents 
the  Father  as  about  to  give  that  which  is 
asked  of  him.  Again,  in  the  first  and  third 
passages,  the  prayer  is  said  to  be  offered  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  while  in  the  second,  it  is  said 
to  be  offered  by  those  who  abide  in  Christ, 


304 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XV. 


17  «  These  things  I  command  you,  that  ye  love  one 
another. 

18  'If  the  world  hate  you,  ye  know  that  it  hated  me 
before  it  haled  you. 


17  give  it  you.    These  things  I  command  you,  that  ye 

18  love  one  another.    If  the  world  hateth  you,  i  ye  know 


a  ver.  12.... 6  1  John  3:1,  13. 1  Or,  know  ye. 


and  have  his  words  abiding  in  them.  It  may 
then  be  inferred  from  these  representations, 
(1)  That  both  the  Father  and  the  Son  (as  well 
as  the  Spirit)  may  be  looked  upon  as  con- 
cerned in  answering  true  prayer.  What  is 
heard  by  the  Father  is  heard  by  the  Son,  and 
what  is  answered  by  the  Father  is  answered 
by  the  Son.  This  instance  comes,  therefore, 
under  the  more  general  law  that,  "whatso- 
ever things  he  {the  Father)  doeth,  these  also 
doeth  the  Son  likewise  (in  like  -manner.) 
(5:19).  And  (2)  that  there  is  no  promise  of 
answers  to  prayer,  unless  those  who  offer  it 
are  in  union  with  Christ  and  ask  according  to 
his  will.  Hence  the  need  of  divine  grace  in 
prayer,  and  the  preciousness  of  the  apostle's 
testimony  :  "Likewise  the  Spirit  also  helpeth 
our  infirmities:  for  we  know  not  what  we 
should  pray  for  as  we  ought;  but  the  Spirit 
itself  maketh  intercession  for  us,  with  groan- 
ingsvvhich  cannot  be  uttered"  (Rom.8:26);  that 
is  to  say,  the  Spirit  moves  believers  in  Christ 
to  pray  for  what  is  pleasing  to  God,  and, 
through  their  acceptable  praying,  interposes 
in  their  behalf.  A  Christian,  then,  need  not 
be  troubled  by  the  thought  that  he  assumes, 
in  prayer,  to  enlighten  and  direct  the  All- 
wise.  His  prayers  will  never  be  answered  by 
the  gift  of  what  he  asks,  unless  that  gift  can 
be  conferred  in  harmony  with  the  principles 
of  the  holiest  and  best  moral  government. 
Acceptable  prayer  is  not,  therefore,  dictato- 
rial, but  humble,  trustful,  and  ready  to  bow 
to  the  divine  will.  This,  however,  is  no 
denial  of  the  efficacy  of  prayer.  Admitting 
all  this,  it  is  still  true  that  prayer  is  a  real 
antecedent  and  occasion  of  blessing  from  God, 
a,  reason  for  the  bestowment  of  gifts  that 
would  otherwise  be  withheld.  Prayer  is  not 
omnipotent,  but  it  is  an  appeal  of  weakness 
to  omnipotence,  of  a  dependent  child  to  an 
independent  and  Almighty  Father,  and  its 
request  will  be  granted,  if  love  permits. 
For  what  are  men  better  than  sheep  or  goats, 
That  nourish  a  blind  life  within  the  brain. 
If,  knowing  God,  they  lift  not  hands  of  prayer 
Both  for  themselves  and  those  who  call  them  friends? 
For  so  the  whole  round  earth  is  every  way 
Bound  by  gold  chains  about  the  feet  of  God. 


Observe,  also,  the  two  ends  or  purposes  for 
which  Jesus  chose  and  appointed  his  dis- 
ciples— (1 )  "  That  ye  should  go  and  bring  forth 
fruit,"  etc.,  and  (2)  "That  whatsover  ye  shall 
ask  of  the  Father  in  my  name,  he  may  give  it 
you."  Are  these  ends — bearing  spiritual 
fruit  and  obtaining  answers  to  prayer — repre- 
sented by  Christ  as  co-ordinate?  or,  as  de- 
pendent, the  former  upon  the  latter,  or,  the 
latter  upon  the  former?  or,  as  closely  con- 
nected and  mutually  dependent?  There  is 
no  grammatical  objection  to  any  one  of 
these  views,  but  the  last  seems  to  us  prefer- 
able to  either  of  the  others.  So  interde- 
pendent are  Christian  life  and  Christian 
prayer,  so  necessary-  is  fruit  bearing  to  prayer, 
and  prayer  to  fruit  bearing,  that  the  mind 
naturally  associates  them  together  as  things 
inseparable  and  equally  important. 

17.  These  things  I  command  you,  etc. 
The  expression,  these  things,  cannot  refer 
to  the  single  precept  that  follows ;  but  it  may 
naturally  refer  to  the  precepts  directly  or  in- 
directly given  in  ver.  0-16,  such  as:  "abide 
in  my  love,"  "keep  my ,  commandments," 
"love  one  another,  even  as  I  have  loved 
you,"  'bear  fruit,"  and  "offer  prayer  in  \^^y 
name."  And,  if  this  be  the  correct  interpret- 
ation, Jesus  declares  that  his  purpose  in  giv- 
ing these  precepts  is,  that  ye  [may)  love  one 
another.  So  important  is  brotherly'  love  in 
the  mind  of  Christ,  that  he  devotes  a  consid- 
erable part  of  these  last  moments  with  his 
disciples  to  an  explanation  of  the  duty  and 
privilege  of  such  love.  This  verse  is  a  re- 
sumption of  what  has  been  said  before,  and 
an  introduction  to  what  follows. 

18-25.  Hatred  of  the  World  to  the 
Disciples  of  Christ,  Because  of  its 
Hatred  to  Christ,  axd  to  His  Father. 

18.  If  the  world  hate  you.  A  supposi- 
tion according  to  fact,  though  the  disciples 
themselves  had  as  yet  experienced  very  little 
of  that  hatred.  But  the  time  was  soon  to 
come  when,  in  the  absence  of  their  Master, 
that  hatred  would  be  turned  fiercely  against 
them.  Of  course,  the  world,  is  the  unbe- 
lieving, un.spiritual  mass  of  mankind,  so  des- 


Ch.  XV.] 


JOHN. 


305 


19  "  If'  ye  were  of  the  world,  the  world  would  love  his 
own;  but  '  because  ye  are  not  of  the  world,  but  I  have 
chosen  you  out  of  the  world,  therefore  the  world 
hateth  you. 

20  Remember  the  word  that  I  said  unto  you,  "The 
servant  is  not  greater  than  his  lord.  If  they  have 
persecuted  nie,  they  will  also  persecute  you;  ''if 
they  have  kept  my  saying,  they  will  keep  yours 
also. 


19  that  it  hath  hated  me  before  il  haled  you.  If  ye  were 
of  the  world,  the  world  would  love  its  own:  but  be- 
cause ye  are  not  of  the  world,  but  1  clio.se  you  out 

20  of  the  world,  therefore  the  world  hateth  you.  Ke- 
niember  tlie  word  that  I  said  unto  you,  A  'servant 
is  not  greater  than  his  lord.  If  they  persecuted  me, 
they  will  also  persecute  you  ;  if  they  kept  my  word. 


a  1  John  4:5 b  eh.  17:  14 e  Matt.  10:  24;  Luke  6  :  40;  ch.  13:  16 d  Ezek.  3:  7. 1  Gr.  bondservant. 


ignated  from  the  majority.  Ye  know  (or, 
knoiv)  that  it  hated  (rather,  hath  hated)  me 
before  it  hated  you.  The  Greek  word 
transhited  know  (ytuwcr/cere),  has  the  same 
form  in  the  present  indicative  and  impera- 
tive; but  in  this  place  it  is  probable  impera- 
tive. (Conip.  "Kemember,"  in  ver.  20).  The 
disciples  were  not  yet  fully  aware  of  the 
deadly  hate  that  was  even  now  seeking  the 
life  of  their  Lord.  Hath  hated— perfect 
tense,  to  denote  enduring  enmity.  It  was  no 
sudden,  effervescent  passion,  but  a  deep-seated, 
inveterate  jealousy  and  bitterness  of  spirit 
against  the  Holy  One  of  God  that  he  saw  in 
the  hearts  of  men,  and  that  was  so  soon  to 
find  expression  in  their  conduct.  Before  it 
hated  you — WteraUy ,  Jirst  of  you.  Compare 
1 :  15,  where  the  same  idiom  occurs.  It  may 
imply  that  he  was  "first"  hated,  and  that 
they  were  related  to  him  in  the  matter  spoken 
of,  that  he  was  temporally  and  causally  head 
of  the  series  to  which  they  also  belonged. 
Weiss  rejects  this  view,  and  says  that  "after 
this  example  the  hatred  of  the  world  should 
be  nothing  new,  surprising,  or  stumbling  to 
them."  We  incline  to  the  view  first  men- 
tioned. 

19.  If  ye  were  of  the  world.  To  be  of 
the  Avorld,  is  to  belong  to  it  in  character  and 
conduct,  to  partake  of  its  spirit,  and  yield  to 
its  influence.  (Comp.  17:  14,  16;  1  John  4:  5; 
John  8:  44;  1  John  3:  8,  10,  and  Grimm  "  IST. 
T.  Lexicon,"  s.  v.  ei/oti,  3.  d).  The  AVorld 
would  love  his  (its)  own.  Not  merely  be- 
cause everywhere  "like  rejoices  in  like" 
(Euth.,  Zig. ),  but  also,  because  in  sinful  men, 
selfishness  reigns,  and  leads  them  to  favor 
those  who  are  on  their  side.  As  Weiss  re- 
marks, the  language  of  Jesus  presupposes 
that  self-love  is  characteristic  of  the  world. 
Hence  there  is  said  to  be  a  kind  of  honor 
among  thieves.  They  will  befriend  those 
whom  it  is  their  interest  to  befriend.  Even 
the  most  self-seeking  will  speak  well  of  men 
who  strengthen  their  hands  or  flatter  their 


vanity.  But  because  ye  are  not  of  the 
world — in  the  sense  explained  above,  but  I 
have  chosen  (chose)  you  out  of  the  Avorld. 

Here,  certainly',  whatever  may  be  thouglit 
of  the  expression,  "but  I  chose  you," 
in  verse  16,  the  choice  spoken  of  is  not  the 
election  to  the  apostolic  office,  but  the  election 
to  discipleship  and  salvation,  to  spiritual  and 
eternal  life  ;  for  the  choice,  or  election,  is  one 
by  which  they  were  separated  from  the 
world,  and  not  from  the  general  body  of 
disciples.  "It  is  dogmatic  artifice,"  says 
Weiss,  "if  Luthardt,  and  Ebrard  after  Hof- 
mann,  assert  that  there  is  no  reference  in  this 
language  to  others  who  are  not  chosen,  but 
only  to  the  collection  of  a  holy  band,  since 
the  expression,  'out  of  the  world,'  points  di- 
rectly to  the  community  to  which  they  had 
belonged,  and  the  rest  of  whose  members 
remain  what  they  were,  because  not  chosen, 
as  these.  But  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
this  choice  was  made  according  to  a  decretum 
absolutum,  and  not  in  view  of  something 
which  made  them  suitable  for  his  purposes." 
It  may  be  added,  that  the  word  chose,  both 
here  and  in  verse  16,  represents  a  Greek  verb 
in  the  middle  voice,  and  may  be  translated, 
strictly,  "chose  for  myself."  Therefore  the 
Avorld  hateth  you.  Therefore — i.  e.,  on 
account  of  this.  The  disciples  must  not  be 
surprised  at  the  world's  hatred ;  for  it  is  due 
to  the  great  fact  that  they  are  no  longer  at 
one  with  it  in  aim  or  spirit,  in  creed  or  con- 
duct; they  have  been  called  out  of  it,  and 
now  belong  to  a  kingdom  "not  of  this  world." 
In  union  with  Christ,  they  must  of  necessity 
share  his  destiny  as  one  rejected  by  the  world. 
And  surely  this  thought  will  be  a  comfort  to 
them  whenever  they  are  made  to  suffer  by 
the  world's  hatred. 

20.  Remember  the  word,  etc.  Probably 
he  intends  to  recall  what  he  had  said  to  them 
earlier  in  the  evening,  for  another  purpose 
(see  13:  16);  for  the  same  truth  maj'  be  per- 
tinent in  more  than  one  connection.    The  fact 


U 


306 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XV. 


21  But  ".tH  these  things  will  they  do  unto  you  for  |  21  they  will  keep  yours  also.  But  all  these  things  will 
my  name's  sake,  because  they  know  not  him  that  sent  they  do  unto  you  for  my  name's  sake,  because  they 
me.  I 

aMatt.  10:22;24:9;ch.  16:  3. 


that  the  servant  is  not  greater  than  his  Master,  I 
is  a  good  reason  why  he  ought  cheerfully  to 
perform  any  task,  however  lowly,  which  his 
Master  is  willing  to  perform ;  and  the  same 
fact  is  an  equally'  good  reason  why  he  should 
expect  that  men  who  will  maltreat  his  Master, 
will  not  hesitate  to  maltreat  him,  if  faithful 
to  that  Master.  But  the  words  of  Christ  on 
another  occasion,  when  lie  sent  forth  the 
twelve  on  a  brief  mission  to  the  lost  sheep  of 
the  house  of  Israel,  are  not  only  identical 
with  these,  but  were  employed  to  teach  the 
same  lesson.  (See  Matt.  10:  24,  sq.).  If  they 
have  persecuted  me,  they  will  also  per- 
secute you.  Have  is  to  be  omitted  before 
persecuted.  This  is  only  another  and 
stronger  statement  of  the  case  presented  in 
the  foregoing  verse ;  for  whom  the  world 
hates  it  will  find  means  to  persecute.  But  it 
is  interesting  to  observe  that  Jesus  here  speaks 
of  his  disciples  as  truly  devoted  to  him,  and 
as  distinct  from  the  world,  by  virtue  of  their 
moral  affinity  to  him.  For  merely  nominal 
disciples  are  in  little  danger  of  persecution. 
Only  those  who  are  true  to  their  Lord  are 
likely  to  suffer  from  the  malignity  of  his  foes. 
If  they  have  (omit  have)  kept  my  saying, 
they  will  keep  yours  also.  A  plain  as- 
sumption that  their  word  would  be  substan- 
tially the  same  as  his— a  word  giving  the 
same  view  of  him  and  of  his  spiritual  reign 
which  he  had  so  patiently  endeavored  to  in- 
still into  their  minds,  but  which  they  had 
proved  so  incapable  of  receiving  until  this 
hour.  Yet  they  were  to  receive  it,  as  the 
Saviour  knew,  with  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  at 
the  first  Pentecost  after  his  resurrection,  and 
were  to  preach  it  so  purely  that  God  would 
confirm  their  message  by  signs  following. 
Moreover,  this  saying  of  Jesus  has  been  veri- 
fied by  the  entire  history  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion. Those  who  have  reverenced  the  word 
of  Christ  as  holy  and  true,  have  also,  with  few 
exceptions,  reverenced  the  word  of  the 
apostles  as  holy  and  true.  And  those  who 
have  rejected  the  divine  authority  of  the 
apostles'  teaching,  have  also,  sooner  or  later, 
rejected  that  of  Christ's  teaching  in  the 
Gospels. 


21.  But  all  these  things  will  they  do 
unto  you  for  my  name's  sake.  Notice  (1) 
that  Jesus  takes  for  granted  the  truth  of  the 
former  of  the  two  alternatives  mentioned  by 
him  in  the  last  part  of  verse  20,  and  means  by 
the  expression,  all  these  things,  persecution 
and  other  manifestations  of  hatred.  (2)  That 
he  points  out  the  deepest  reason  for  this  hatred 
and  persecution  of  his  disciples.  Because  the 
world  hates  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ — i.  e.,  the 
character  and  work  represented  by  that  name, 
it  will  seek  to  vex  and  destroy  those  who  honor 
and  worship  it.  (See  Acts  4:  17;  9  :  14;  26:  9.) 
That  Jesus  claimed  to  be  "the  Son  of  God" 
was  counted  blasphemy  bj'  the  Sanhedrin, 
and  was  the  ostensible  reason  for  his  condem- 
nation ;  but,  in  reality-,  his  holy  and  unworldly 
spirit,  together  with  the  aim  and  character  of 
his  work,  was  a  disappointment  to  their  ex- 
pectations, a  rebuke  to  their  pride,  and  a  con- 
demnation ot  their  life,  which  filled  them 
with  wrath.  (3)  That  this  is  no  new  doctrine 
of  Jesus.  He  had  suggested  the  same  thing 
in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount:  "Blessed  are 
ye  when  men  shall  revile  you,  and  persecute 
you,  and  shall  say  all  manner  of  evil  against 
you  fiilsely,  for  my  sake."  (Matt. 5:  ii.)  Ar.d  it 
is  certainly  safe  to  presume  that  Jesus,  by 
suggesting  this,  intended  not  only  to  show  his 
disciples  the  ineviiableness  of  persecution,  but 
to  furnish  them  also  with  comfort  in  bearing 
it.  "Kejoice,  and  be  exceeding  glad:  for 
great  is  your  reward  in  heaven  :  for  so  perse- 
cuted they  the  prophets  which  were  before 
3'ou."  (Matt.  5:12.)  The  assurance  that  they 
were  suflTering  for  the  name  of  Christ,  whom 
they  adored  as  their  Saviour,  and  that  they 
were  but  drinking  the  cup  which  he  had 
drained  before  (Matt.  20 :  22),  v/ould  be  their  great- 
est consolation  in  the  dungeon,  or  on  the 
cross.  Because  they  know  not  him  that 
sent  me.  Thus  Jesus  attributes  the  hostility 
which  was  seeking  his  life,  and  which  would 
seek  that  of  his  friends,  to  ignorance  of  God. 
And  by  ignorance  of  God  is  meant  want  of 
love  to  his  character.  For  to  know  God,  in 
the  highest  and  only  adequate  sense,  is  to  love 
him.  Not  to  love  him,  is  to  be  ignorant  of 
him.     If  the  Jews  had  understood  and  ap- 


Ch.  XV.] 


JOHN. 


307 


22  "If  I  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto  them,  they 
had  not  had  sin:  'but  now  they  have  no  cloke  for  their 
sin. 

23  '  He  that  hateth  nie  hateth  my  Father  also. 

24  If  I  had  not  done  among  theiu  ''tlie  works  which 
none  other  man  did,  tliey  had  not  had  sin :  but  now 
have  they  both  seen  and  hated  both  me  and  my 
Father. 


22  know  not  him  that  sent  me.    If  I  had  not  come  and 

spoken  unto  them,  they  had  not  had  sin:  but  now 

2:5  they  liave  no  excuse  for  tlieir  sin.     He  that  hateth 

24  me  hateth  my  Father  also.    If  I  had  not  done  among 

them  the  works  which   none  other  did,  they   had 

not  had  sin :    but  now  have  they  both  seen  and 


ach.  9:  41 ft  Rom.  1:20;  James  4  :  16 elJobn2:  23 d  cb.  3:  2;  7:31;  9:  32. 


preciated  the  God  of  their  fathers,  they  would 
have  been  won  to  Christ,  and  would  have  seen 
in  him  the  Son  of  the  Highest,  the  image  of 
the  invisible  God.  The  same  is  true  of  those 
to  whom  the  gospel  is  preached.  A  rejection 
of  Christ,  is  a  rejection  of  the  Father  who 
sent  him  ;  and  a  rejection  of  the  Father  is  due 
to  a  want  of  love. 

23.  If  I  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto 
them,  they  had  not  had  sin.  The  coming 
here  referred  to,  is  the  coming  from  heaven, 
by  way  of  the  incarnation.  It  was  the  condi- 
tion of  Christ's  speaking  to  men,  and  reveal- 
ing to  them  the  Father  with  unprecedented 
clearness.  Jesus  here  affirms  that  the  sin  of 
the  world  i.s  without  excuse,  because  of  his 
teaching  and  miracles,  (ver.  22. 24.)  AH  previ- 
ous revelations  were  starlight  when  compared 
with  the  noonday  brightness  of  the  one  made 
by  Christ,  and  therefore,  without  this,  the 
Jews  would  have  been  comparatively  innocent. 
For  the  guilt  of  rejecting  God  is  always  in 
proportion  to  the  means  of  knowledge  fur- 
nished. To  have  sin,  means  to  be  a  sinner; 
in  other  words,  it  is  to  have  sinned,  and  hence 
to  be  guilty  of  sin.  Sin  is  conceived  of  as  be- 
longing to  the  sinner,  just  as  truly  as  a  wound, 
or  a  sense  of  pain  belongs  to  one  who  has  it. 
(Comp.  19:  11;  1  John  1:8.)  Bearing  sin  is 
a  similar  expression  ;  for  the  guilt  of  it  is  con- 
ceived of  as  resting  upon  the  wrong-doer,  and 
exposing  him  to  just  punishment.  (Num.9:  vi;  u: 
34;  18:  22.)  Of  course,  the  second  clause,  they 
had  not  had  sin,  must  be  taken  in  a  quali- 
fied, not  an  absolute  sense.  Their  sin  would, 
in  that  case,  have  been  as  nothing  compared 
with  what  it  now  is.  But  now  they  have  no 
cloke  (/)r,  excuse)  for  their  sin.  As  knowl- 
edge, and,  indeed,  knowledge  in  its  purest 
form  and  greatest  spiritual  beauty,  has  been 
placed  within  their  reach,  and  they  have  re- 
fused to  welcome  it,  their  sin  is  without  excuse. 
"To  him  that  knoweth  to  do  good,  and  doeth 
it  not,  to  him  it  is  sin."  (James4:i7.)  Observe 
(1)  that  ignorance  may  sometimes  be  a  plausi- 
ble or  partial  excuse  for  evil  conduct,  though 


it  is  never,  perhaps,  a  perfectly  sufficient  one. 
(Comp.  1  Tim.  1  :  13;  Acts  17:  80;  1  Pet.  1: 
14.)  (2)  That  this  ignorance  must  be  due  to  a 
lack  of  the  means  of  knowledge,  as  well  as  of 
knowledge  itself,  or  it  will  be  of  no  avail  as  an 
apology  for  wrong-doing.  Only  in  ca.se  it 
were  absolute,  involuntary,  and  wholly  due 
to  the  providence  of  God,  would  it  be  a  valid 
excuse  for  evil  conduct.  And  such  ignorance 
of  duty  does  not  probably  anywhere  exist 
(comp.  Rom.  1:  19,  sq.;  2:  12-15);  certainly 
it  did  not  prevail  among  the  Jews  in  Christ's 
day. 

23.  He  that  hateth  me  hateth  my 
Father  also.  The  Son  is  one  with  the 
Father,  is  the  image  of  the  Father,  is  the 
clearest  possible  revelation  of  the  Father,  and, 
indeed,  as  clear  a  revelation  of  the  Father  as 
of  himself^the  Son.  And  he  is  this  down 
to  the  present  hour,  by  his  teaching  and  per- 
sonal bearing;  by  the  divine  purit3' and  au- 
thority; by  the  soul-awakening  and  soul- 
illuminating  power  of  his  words  and  life. 
But  he  knows  himself  to  be  hated— steadily, 
deeply,  and  even  bitterly  hated — by  many  of 
the  people,  and  in  this  hour  of  most  solemn 
and  hol^'  feeling,  he  deliberatelj-  affirms  that 
hatred  of  himself  is  hatred  of  his  Father — 
that  hatred  of  the  Son  of  God  is  hatred  of 
God.     And  if  it  was  so  then,  is  it  not  so  now? 

24.  If  I  had  not  done  among  them  the 
works  which  none  other  man  did.  The 
mighty  works  of  Jesus,  viewed  in  all  their 
circumstances  and  characteristics,  were  more 
evidently  and  indisputably  divine  than  any 
works  ever  performed  among  men.  They 
were  "signs"  which  ought  to  have  convinced 
the  most  cautious  and  conservative  that  God 
was  with  him.  (Comp.  3:  2;  9:  30-33.)  Judged 
by  them,  as  well  as  by  his  teaching,  Jesus 
ought  to  have  been  welcomed  as  the  long  ex- 
pected Messiah  and  Holy  One  of  God  («:  69), 
instead  of  being  accused  of  serving  Beelze- 
bub, and  blaspheming  Jehovah.  Profoundly 
as  they  were  disappointed  in  their  expecta- 
tions of  a  civil   ruler,  and  shocked  as  they 


808 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XV. 


25  But  this  Cometh  to  pass,  that  the  word  might  be  |  25  hated  both  me  and  my  Father.     But  this  eometh  to 


fultilled  that  is  written  in  their  law,  "  They  hated  me 
without  a  cause. 

2t)  '  But  when  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will 
send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
■which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  «he  shall  testify  of 
me: 


pass,  that  the  word  may  be  lultilled  that  is  writteo 
26  in  their  law.  They  hated  me  without  a  cause.  But 
when  the  i  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send 
unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
who  -proceedeth  from   the  Father,   he   shall   bear 


a  Ps.  35 :  19 ; 


.6  Luke  24:  49;  ch.  14:  17,  26;  16:  7,  13;  Acta  2:  33 c  1  John  5: 

dete  ....  2  Or.  goeth  forth /rotn. 


6. 1  Oi-,  Advocate.    Or,  Helper.    Gr.  fara- 


were  by  his  disregard  of  their  Sabbath 
scruples,  and  provoked  as  they  were  by  his 
outspoken  condemnation  of  their  hypocrisy, 
they  ougiit  to  have  received  the  holy  and  self- 
evidencing  truth  which  he  proclaimed  with 
divine  authority,  and  to  have  been  convinced 
by  the  miracles  which  he  wrought.  But  they 
were  filled  with  a  deep  moral  enmity  to  God, 
which  evidence  could  not  overcome.  Their 
unbelief  was  a  matter  of  the  heart,  and  was, 
therefore,  proof  against  reason.  How  many 
in  every  age  have  been  like  them !  The 
world  did  not  come  to  an  end  with  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem.  But  noAV  have 
they  both  seen  and  hated  both  me  and 
my  Father.  Seen — i.  e.,  in  and  by  the 
works  of  which  he  is  speaking.  These  works 
were  no  less  a  revelation  of  his  Father  than 
of  himself.  They  "revealed  outwardly  the 
maj'^sty  and  will  of  God,  and  of  Christ,  as 
the  representative  of  God." —  Westcott.  "With 
this  language  may  be  compared  that  of  14:  9: 
"  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father  " 
25.  But  this  Cometh  to  pass,  that  the 
word  mi&rht  (or,  ?nny)  be  fulfilled  that  is 
written  in  their  law,  They  hated  me 
Avithout  a  cause.  The  ellipsis  after  but,  is 
properly  filled,  we  believe,  with  the  words, 
this  Cometh  to  pass.  But  why  an  ellipsis 
here,  and  in  13:  18?  Weis^s  suggests  that  we 
"may  assume  a  painful  nposiopesis,  in  which 
Jesus  forbears  to  declare  what  it  was  that 
took  place,  in  order  that  the  prophecy  might 
be  fulfilled."  Of  course  Jesus  does  not  mean 
that  the  world  hated  him  with  a  view  to  ful- 
filling a  prediction  of  the  Scripture,  or  that 
God  had  either  moved  or  permitted  the  world 
to  hate  him  in  order  to  thus  fulfill  a  pro- 
phecy of  Scripture.  But  God  made  the  pre- 
diction because  he  foresaw  the  events  which  it 
described,  and  because  he  would  have  his  peo- 
ple know  that  he  foresaw  these  events,  and  so 
was  not  taken  with  surprise  by  them.  There 
was,  therefore,  a  good  end  accomplished  by 
the  fulfillment  of  these  predictions — an  end 
which  God  had  in  view  when  he  made  them, 


an  end  which  the  Saviour  recognized  as  ac- 
complished by  them.  And  by  calling  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that,  in  a  comprehensive 
sense,  God's  knowledge  and  plan  of  govern- 
ment took  into  account  from  the  beginning 
all  these  dark  and  perplexing  events,  Jesus 
removes  doubt  from  the  mind  of  his  disciples. 
The  emphatic  words  of  the  quotation  are, 
probably,  the  last,  without  a  cause.  (Comp. 
vor.  22,  24).  Their  enmity  to  Christ  was 
gratuitous,  undeserved,  unprovoked.  The 
quotation  is  thought  to  be  from  Ps.  69:  4. 
(Comp.  Ps.  35:  19).  In  his  introduction  to 
this  Psalm,  Perowne  says:  "  Enough,  how- 
ever, remains  to  justify  the  Messianic  sense 
of  the  Psalm,  provided  our  interpretation  be 
fair  and  sober.  The  broa-.l  principle  laid 
down  in  the  introduction  to  the  Seventy- 
second  Psalm  applies  here.  The  history  of 
prophets  and  holy  men  of  old  is  a  typical 
history.  They  were,  it  may  be  said,  repre- 
sentative men,  suflfering  and  hoping,  not  for 
themselves  only,  but  for  the  nation  whom 
thej'  represented.  In  their  sufferings  they 
were  feeble  and  transient  images  of  the  Great 
Sufllorer,  who  by  his  suflTerings  accomplished 
man's  redemption."  And  on  the  fourth 
verse,  as  cited  in  part  hy  Jesus,  he  remarks: 
"The  manner  of  citation  plainly  shows  how 
we  are  to  understand  that  it  might  be  fulfilled 
{'iva  TrAi/piiSj;) ;  what  was  true,  in  some  sense, 
even  of  the  sufl^ering  Israelite  under  the  law, 
was  still  more  true  of  Him  in  whom  was  no 
sin,  and  whom,  therefore,  his  enemies  did 
indeed  hate  without  cause."  And  the  Spirit 
of  God  foresaw  the  antitype  in  the  type. 
Observe  that  the  Psalms  are  evidently  em- 
braced in  their  law,  as  the  words  aye  here 
used.  The  whole  Old  Testament  was,  in  fact, 
regarded  by  the  Jews  as  their  law,  in  so  for 
as  it  was  their  rule  of  duty  towards  God  and 
man.  Jesus  does  not  seem  to  call  it  their 
laAV  by  way  of  contrast  with  a  different  law 
now  binding  on  his  followers,  but  simply  as  a 
law  which  they  recognized  as  divine. 
26.  But  when  the  Comforter  {Advocate) 


Ch.  XV.] 


JOHN. 


309 


27  And  "ye  also  shall  bear  witness,  because  'ye  have  1  27  witness  of  me:   '  and  ye  also  bear  witness,  because 
been  with  liie  from  the  beginning.  |       ye  have  been  with  me  from  the  beginning. 


a  Luke  24  :  48  ;  Acts  1  :  S,  n,  22 ;  2 :  32 ;  3 :  15 ;  4  :  20,  33  ;  5 :  32  ;  10 :  3!» ;  13  :  31 ;  1  Pet.  5 :  I ;  2  Pet.  1 :  16. . 

1  Oi',  and  bear  ye  also  witneta. 


.b  Luke  1:2;  1  Jubu  I:  1,  2.- 


is  come,  etc.  The  word  but  should  prob- 
ably be  omitted.  Notice  (1)  that  the  pur- 
pose for  which  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  here  said 
to  come  to  the  disciples,  is  to  bear  witness  con- 
cerning Christ.  The  hatred  of  the  world  is 
not  to  prevail  against  Jesus  and  his  followers, 
by  putting  them  to  silence  after  putting  him 
to  death,  but  his  honor  and  cause  are  to  be 
maintained  by  the  Divine  Advocate,  who  is  to 
take  his  own  place  with  the  disciples.  (2)  That 
Jesus  himself  engages  to  send  this  Advocate 
and  Witness  from  the  Father;  for  the  pro- 
noun I  is  emphatic,  as  if  he  had  said  in 
English,  "Whom  I  myself  will  send  to  you," 
etc.  Twice  before  he  has  claimed  a  part  in 
this  sending  of  the  Paraclete,  first,  by  saying, 
"I — i.  e.,  I  myself  will  pray  the  Father,  and 
he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter,  (Advo- 
cate)"' (14:16);  and,  secondly,  by  speaking  of 
the  Spirit  as  One  "whom  the  Father  will 
send  in  my  name"  (i*:  26);  but  here  he  makes 
his  own  authority  more  prominent,  though  in 
perfect  harmony  with  his  claim  to  be  one 
with  the  Father  in  all  action  for  the  salvation 
of  men.  (Comp.  5:  19sq. ;  6:  44;  12:  32;  10: 
28-30).  (3)  That  the  Advocate  is  to  come 
from  the  Father — i.  e.,  from  with  the 
Father,  even  as  he  is  characterized  as  One 
"who  proceedeth  from  with  the  Father." 
Westcott  remarks:  "The  preposition  (n-apa) 
which  is  used  in  both  clauses,  expresses,  prop- 
erly, position  ('from  the  side  of),  and  not 
source  (««,  'out  of')."  There  is,  therefore,  no 
sufficient  basis  in  the  expression,  "which  pro- 
ceedeth from  the  Father,"  for  the  doctrine  of 
the  eternal  Procession  of  the  Spirit  from  the 
Father.  Especially  important  is  it,  as  West- 
cott has  noted,  "that  the  Greek  Fathers  who 
apply  this  passage  to  the  eternal  Procession 
instinctively  substitute  'out  of  («"«)  for  'from' 
(irapa)  in  their  application  of  it."  Why  then 
is  the  present  tense  employed  in  this  clause? 
or  why  is  this  clause  added  to  the  promise, 
I  will  send,  etc.  ?  We  answer,  to  connect 
the  working  of  the  Spirit  in  every  age  or  dis- 
pensation with  the  Father's  will.  And 
this  appears  to  be  the  view  of  Weiss  (in 
Meyer).  He  says  that  the  word  "proceedeth" 
(eicjropeueTai),   "expressing  action  in  a  general 


way,  without  temporal  limits,  does  not  refer 
to  the  essence  of  the  Spirit  (Lucke),  or  to  the 
imminent  relation  of  the  divine  subsistences 
(Stier,  Godet)  .  .  but,  according  to  the  con- 
text, to  the  eft'ective  communication  from  the 
Father  ad  extra,  through  which,  in  every 
case  that  occurs,  the  Spirit  is  received."  And 
Westcott  says  again  :  "The  use  of  the  present 
(proceedeth),  in  contrast  with  the  future  (/ 
will  send),  brings  out  the  truth  that  the  mis- 
sion of  the  Spirit  consequent  on  the  exalta- 
tion of  the  Son,  was  the  consummation  of  his 
earlier  working  in  the  world."  It  is  certainly 
rash  to  affirm  that  this  language  has  any 
direct  reference  to  the  inner  and  essential  re- 
lations of  the  Godhead.  It  shows,  however, 
that  in  the  economy  of  grace,  the  work  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Spirit  cannot  be  regarded  as 
separate  from  that  of  the  Father.  (4)  That 
the  work  of  the  Paraclete  in  bearing  witness 
respecting  Christ,  is  to  be  effected  in  and 
through  his  disciples — unless,  perhaps,  the 
testimony  of  miracles  be  regarded  as  external 
to  them,  though  connected  with  their  faith 
and  confirmatory  of  their  mission  and  word. 
In  support  of  this  statement,  we  appeal  to  the 
words,  "whom  I  will  send  imto  2/o?<,"  and 
to  the  fact  that  the  Spirit  was  not  only  to 
quicken  the  memory  of  the  disciples  as  to 
what  Jesus  had  taught  them,  but  was  also  to 
teach  them  himself,  and  guide  them  into  all 
the  truth  (i4:26;  i6:i6sq).  Besides,  as  a  matter 
of  history,  it  appears  that  the  Spirit's  witness 
concerning  Christ  has  always  been  closely 
connected  with  that  of  the  apostles  in  preach- 
ing, or  the  written  word.  The  experience  of 
Christian  men  under  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  is  dependent  on  the  testimony  of  Scrip- 
ture as  to  the  life  of  Christ.  Hence  the  im- 
portance of  the  next  verse. 

27.  And  .ye  also  shall  bear  witness. 
Bear  witness,  instead  of  shall  bear  wit- 
ness, appears  to  be  the  true  reading  in  this 
place.  But  to  translate  it  as  an  imperative 
(though  the  form  allows  this)  breaks  the  con- 
nection and  mars  the  harmony  of  the  passage. 
It  is  better  to  account  for  the  present  indica- 
tive by  supposing  that  Jesus  would  recognize, 
with  all  possible  honor,  their  actual  relation 


310 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


CHAPTEK   XVI. 


THESE  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  that  ye  "  should 
not  be  oilendefl. 
2  'They  shall  put  you  out  of  the  synagogues:  yea, 
the  time  cometh,  =lhat  whosoever  killeth  you  will  think 
that  he  doeth  God  service. 


1  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  that  ye 

2  should  not  be  made  to  stumble.  They  shall  put 
you  out  of  the  synagogues:  yea,  the  hour  cometh, 
that  whosoever  killeth  you  shall   think    that    he 


o  Malt.  11:  6;  24:  10;  26:  31 b  ch.  9  :  22,  34;  12:  42 c  Acls  8:1;  9:1;  26:  9,  10.  11. 


to  him.  For  the  eleven  were  loyal,  though 
weak.  They  had  often  testified  of  the  wisdom 
and  power  of  their  Master,  and  they  were 
now  ready  to  repeat  their  testimony.  Jesus 
therefore  describes  them  as  doing  what  they 
have  done,  are  prepared  to  do,  and  will  spend 
their  lives  in  doing.  "Ye,  too,  are  my  wit- 
nesses," is  the  purport  of  his  language.  Be- 
cause ye  have  been  (rather,  are)  with  me 
from  the  beginning.  A  case  of  brevilo- 
quence,  meaning,  "Ye  are  now,  and  have 
been,  from  the  beginning  of  my  public  work, 
with  me."  (Comp.  Lukel:2;  Acts  1:22; 
and  John  8:  44;  Acts  26:  4).  Godet  remarks: 
"The  apostles  will  not  be  mere  passive  in- 
struments of  the  Spirit.  They  will  continue 
to  be  free  and  personal  agents.  Along  with 
the  action  of  the  Spirit  they  will  have  their 
special  part  to  do  in  bearing  testimony.  For 
they  possess  a  treasure  which  is  their  own, 
and  which  the  Spirit  could  not  have  commu- 
nicated to  them — their  historical  knowledge 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  from  its  origin  even 
to  its  end.  The  apostles  were  to  be  the  wit- 
nesses of  the  historic  Christ.  But  the  Spirit 
does  not  teach  the  facts  of  history  ;  he  unfolds 
its  true  meaning.  The  apostolic  testimony, 
and  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  form,  there- 
fore, a  single  act,  but  they  contribute  each  a 
different  element — one  the  historic  narrative, 
the  other  its  internal  evidence  and  victorious 
force."  If  Godet  means  to  deny  the  agency 
of  the  Spirit  in  quickening  the  memory  of 
the  apostles,  his  denial  is  nullified  by  the  ex- 
press declaration  of  Christ  (u:  26) ;  but  if  he 
only  means  that  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not 
reveal  to  them  historic  facts  in  the  life  of 
Christ  which  they  had  never  learned  by 
natural  means,  by  sight  or  hearing,  his  state- 
ment may  be  correct.  At  all  events,  it  directs 
us  to  what  may  be  called  the  distinctive  ele- 
ments of  the  double  testimony  of  the  Spirit 
and  the  apostles. 

Ch.  16 :  1-4.  Keligious  Persecution 
Because  of  the  World's  Hatred,  Gra- 
ciously Foretold. 


1.  These  things  have  I  spoken  nnto 
you.  These  things,  may  compri.se  all  that 
is  recorded  in  the  preceding  chapter,  but 
especially  in  the  last  part  of  it.  (ver.  16-27). 
That  ye  should  not  be  offended,  (better, 
as  in  Rev.  Ver.,  that  ye  may  not  be  made  to 
stumble).  By  forewarning  them  of  the  inex- 
cusable ho.stilty  of  "the  world" — a  hostility' 
directed  against  Jehov&h  and  his  Anointed 
(Ps. 2:  2),  even  when  it  is  aimed  at  them — Jesus 
seeks  to  prepare  them  for  what  is  to  come,  and 
so  to  prevent  them  from  falling  into  doubt  or 
despair.  For  the  rejection  of  the  gospel  by 
the  bulk  of  the  Jewish  nation,  was  sure  to 
prove  one  of  the  sorest  trials  of  their  faith. 
If  the  confidence  of  the  elect  in  him  could  be 
broken  by  anything,  it  would  be  broken  by 
the  utter  foilureof  the  chosen  people  to  recog- 
nize their  King,  and  by  their  bitter  enmity  to 
him  as  an  alleged  impostor  and  blasphemer. 
For  the  use  of  the  word  (o-KafSaXt^eiv),  to  cause 
to  stumble,  see  Matt.  5:  29,  30;  11:  6;  John 
6:  61 ;  and  Matt.  13:  21,  compared  with  Luke 
8:  13.  In  the  New  Testament  it  never  de- 
notes causing  one  to  stumble  or  fall,  physi- 
cally, but  always  morally;  in  other  words,  it 
is  always  used  in  a  tropical  sense,  meaning,  to 
cause  one  to  fall  into  sin,  apostasy,  or  the  like. 

2.  They  shall  (better,  tvill),  put  you  out 
of  the  synagogue.  See  Note  on  this  form 
of  excommunication  at  9:  22.  "And  this, 
which  you  might  naturally  anticipate,  if  the 
people  reject  the  gospel,  is  not  the  worst; 
'^  but  on  hour  cometh."  This  gives  the  sense 
more  exactly  than  the  version,  Yea,  tlie 
time,  etc.  For  but  (aXAo)  "introduces  the 
contrast  of  a  much  worse,  a  bloody  issue."  — 
Weiss.  If  no  attempt  is  made  to  supply  (as 
above)  the  unexpressed  thought  which  ac- 
counts for  the  contrast  expressed  by  this  con- 
nective, the  customary  version,  yea,  is  the 
best  approximate  rendering  of  the  original. 
(See  Winer,  p.  451).  That  whosoever 
killeth  you,  etc.  What  must  be  said  of  the 
conjunction  that  (IVa)?  Does  it  retain  in  this 
place  the  idea  of  purpose  or  end?  So  Winer 
believes  (p.  830:)     "<Ae  time  is  come  in  order 


Ch.  XVI.] 


JOHN. 


311 


3  Aud  "these  things  will  they  do.  unto  you,  because 
they  have  not  known  the  Father,  nor  uie. 

4  But  'these  things  have  I  told  you,  that  when  the 
time  shall  come,  ye  luay  remember  that  I  told  you  of 
them.  And  "these  things  I  said  not  uuto  you  at  the 
beginning,  because  I  was  with  you. 


3  offereth  service  unto  God.  And  these  things  will 
they  do,  because  they  have  not  known  the  Father, 

4  nor  me.  But  these  things  have  I  .'^ixikeri  unto  you, 
that  when  their  hour  is  come,  ye  may  remember 
them,  how  that  I  told  you.  And 'these  things  1  said 
not  unto  you  from  thi;  beginning,  because  I  was  with 


:  21;  Rom.  10:  2  ;  1  Cor.  2:  8;  1  Tim.  1:  13 b  ch.  i:) :  19;  U:  29 c  See  Malt.  9:  15. 


^o— that  is,  the  time  appointed  for  the  pur- 
pcse,  that,  etc."  So,  also,  Mej'er  and  Weiss. 
"Wliat  will  happen  in  the  '  hour,'  is  regarded 
as  the  object  of  its  coming."  In  other  words, 
this  dreadful  violence  in  persecuting  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ  will  have  its  day  and  hour,  a 
period  provided  for  it  in  the  holy  plan  of 
God.i 

By  saj'ing  'whosoever — every  one,  etc., 
Jesus  declares  that  the  deadly-  persecutions  to 
be  anticipated  by  his  followers  would  be 
animated  by  religious  fanaticism,  by  an 
opinion  on  the  part  of  those  who  should  con- 
duct them,  that  killing  the  servants  of  Christ 
is  rendering  a  strictly  religious  service  to  God, 
(like  offering  an  appointed  sacrifice).  So, 
then,  an  impure  and  ignorant  zeal  of  God 
would  embitter  the  hearts  of  men  against  his 
most  faithful  servants.  (Comp.  Acts  26:  9; 
Gal.  1:  13  sq).  Many  commentators  refer,  in 
illustration  of  Christ's  saying,  to  the  Midrash 
on  Num.  20:  12,  (where  Phinehas  is  said  to 
have  made  an  atonement  for  the  children  of 
Israel):  "Was  this  said  because  he  offered 
an  offering  (Korban)  ?  No;  but  to  teach  them 
that  every  one  who  sheds  the  blood  of  the 
wicked  is  as  he  that  offereth  an  offering."  See 
also,  the  view  of  heathen  writers,  in  Tacitus, 
"Ann."  XV.  44;  and  Suetoniu.s,  "Nero,"  16. 
Alas,  the  day  has  not  yet  dawned,  when  re- 
ligious persecution,  even  unto  death,  is  seen 
by  all  to  be  evil. 

3.  And  these  things  will  they  do  unto 
you  (omit  unto  you),  because  they  have 
not  known  the  Father,  nor  me.     Perhaps 

1  The  writer  is  indebted  to  Dr.  Broadus  for  the  fol- 
lowing Note:  "An  hour  is  coming,  and  has  come, 
for  you  to  be  scattered,  etc.  I  think  this  is  a  pretty 
exact  rendering.  It  does  not  luean  that  an  hour 
has  come  for  that  purpose,  but  that  an  hour  suited  and 
appointed  for  that  has  arrived.  There  are  in  tliis  Gos- 
pel many  delicate  non-final  uses  of  ['i-va).  Meyer  insists 
on  making  them  all  strictly  final,  which  is  often  ex- 
tremely awkward  and  forced,  and  Winer  only  half 
extricated  himself  from  that  notion.  It  is  frequently 
very  ditiicult  to  render,  or  to  determine,  the  exact 
shade  of  meaning  in  such  cases,  but  that  the  (iVa)  is 
very  often  not  final  is  certain." 


the  stricter  rendering,  becau&e  they  knew  not, 
would  be  justified  in  this  case  by  supposing 
that  the  mind  of  Jesus  passes  forward  to  the 
time  of  persecution  (will  they  do),  and  from 
that  point  views  the  failure  to  recognize  the 
Father  and  Christ  as  something  already-  com- 
plete in  the  past.  But  with  either  translation 
the  principal  thought  of  this  clause  remains 
the  same.  The  knew  not;  or,  have  not 
known,  is  not  mentioned  by  way  of  e.xcu.se 
for  their  conduct.  It  is  rather  a  part  of  their 
sin,  but  a  part  which  accounts  for  the  rest. 
That  when  light  came  into  the  world,  they 
loved  darkness  rather  than  light  (s:  i9),  was  in 
a  high  degree  sinful,  and  was  the  occasion  of 
other  sin,  even  the  unrelenting  severity  with 
which  they  tried  to  exterminate  those  who 
were  willing  to  walk  in  the  light.  How  evi- 
dent it  is  that  one  who  supposes  God  to  be 
pleased  with  religious  persecution,  has  no 
correct  view  of  his  character!  How  clear 
that  one  who  imagines  Jesus  Christ  to  be 
pleased  with  such  a  use  of  force  and  violence, 
is  a  stranger  to  his  love !  Yet  how  uniformly 
and  fiercely  have  the  persecutors  of  good  men 
claimed  that  the3'-  were  doing  their  terrible 
work  for  the  Lord's  sake!  Is  there  not 
danger  of  palliating  their  sin,  by  the  plea 
that  they  were  doing  what  they  supposed  to 
be  right?  Was  not  the  light  offered  to  their 
minds?  And  did  they  not  reject  it?  With 
the  knowledge  which  had  been  brought  to 
mankind  by  the  Saviour,  they  had  no  excuse 
for  being  ignorant  of  the  true  God,  or  for  per- 
secuting his  servants. 

4.  But  these  things  have  I  told  you  (or, 
spoken  unto  you).  TJie  word  but  is  most 
naturally  explained  as  denoting  a  sharp  in- 
terruption of  the  account  of  what  the  v;orld 
would  do,  and  a  recurrence  to  the  thought  of 
verse  1 :  But— to  say  no  more  of  this— these 
things,  etc.  That  when  the  time  shall 
come  (lit.,  their  hour  is  co7ne).  Their  hour 
is  the  hour  of  these  events,  the  time  when 
they  will  come  to  pass.  Ye  may  remember 
that  I  told  you  of  them.  The  best  sup- 
ported text  reads :    Ye  may  remember  them, 


312 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


that  I  myself  told  you.  Few  things  would  be 
more  comforting  to  the  disciples  in  times  of 
distress,  produced  \>y  the  hatred  of  men,  than 
a  remembrance  of  Christ's  own  prediction  of 
the  events  by  which  they  were  distressed — a 
prediction  uttered  in  the  immediate  presence 
of  his  agony  in  the  garden  !  That  he  foresaw 
it  all,  that  he  told  them  of  it  in  love,  that 
their  suffering  was  for  him,  and  that  he  had 
suffered  far  more  for  them — all  this  would 
give  them  patience  and  strength.  And  these 
things  I  said  not  unto  you  at  (rather,  from) 
the  beginning,  because  I  Avas  with  you. 
Observe,  (1)  that  Jesus  does  not  deny  having 
spoken  of  these  things  before  the  present 
hour;  he  simply  denies  having  spoken  of 
them  to  his  disciples  from  the  beginning  of 
his  public  ministry.  This  denial  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  an  occasional  reference  in  the 
course  of  his  ministry  to  the  sufferings  which 
they  would  be  called  to  bear.  "The  future 
fate  of  the  disciples  had  not  been  unfolded 
little  by  little  in  unbroken  order  as  a  neces- 
sary consequence  of  their  relation  to  Christ. 
Here  and  there  it  had  been  indicated  before, 
but  now  it  was  shown  in  its  essential  relation 
to  their  faith."—  Westcott.  (2)  That  while 
the  S3'noptists  appear  to  affirm  that  Jesus 
spoke  previously  on  one  occasion  with  much 
fullness  of  the  sufferings  which  would  over- 
take the  disciples,  of  the  hatred  of  the  world 
as  the  source  of  those  sufferings,  and  of  the 
name  of  Christ  as  the  occasion  of  that  hatred, 
they  do  not  say  that  he  spoke  with  the  same 
fullness  (as  here)  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  their 
Teacher  and  Helper  in  time  to  come.  (See 
Matt.  5:  10;  10:  16,  sq.  ;  Luke  6:  22,  .«q.) 
"  'These  things,'  in  this  verse,"  says  Watkins 
(comp.  ver.  3  and  1,  and  chap.  15:  21),  "  refers 
to  the  full  account  he  has  given  them  of  the 
world's  hatred  and  the  principles  lying  at  the 
foot  of  it,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
to  be  met  by  the  Spirit's  witness  and  their 
witness  of  him."  On  the  other  hand,  Weiss 
maintains  (1)  that  Matthew  inserts  in  Christ's 
address  to  the  twelve  (Matt,  lo),  predictions  as 
to  their  future  sufferings  through  persecution 
which,  as  Luke  12  proves,  were  not  uttered, 
at  that  time,  the  Evangelist  bringing  together 
in  that  address  the  substance  of  what  Jesus 
had  said  at  different  times  on  the  matter  re- 
ferred to.  (2)  That  John  also  appears  to  have 
brought  together  in  this  section,  either  con- 


sciously or  unconsciously,  whatever  according 
to  his  recollection  Jesus  had  foretold  concern- 
ing the  destiny  of  his  disciples  in  the  world. 
In  proof  of  this  he  remarks:  "Therefore  in 
this  place  occur  such  sayings  as  15:  20,  sq., 
which  are  undoubtedly  the  same  as  Matt.  10: 

24,  25,  sq. ;  therefore  the  being  hated  for  my 
name's  sake  15:  21,  comp.  Matt.  10:  22;  there- 
fore above  all  the  somewhat  mechanically 
(and  here  surely  by  the  writer's  combination 
of  materials]  introduced  26,  27,  which  are 
certainly  nothing  else  than  a  genuine  Jo- 
hannic  reproduction  of  Matt.  10:  19,  sq." 
But  this  criticism  of  John's  record  seems  to 
me  to  overlook  the  circumstance  that  every 
great  teacher  is  wont  to  repeat  the  same  truth 
again  and  again  with  slight  variations  of  lan- 
guage, gathering  up  the  results  in  some  final 
lesson  which  is  more  complete  or  impressive 
than  any  one  that  preceded  it.  In  this  way, 
I  would  account  for  the  similarity  of  thought 
and  language  in  the  first  two  instances  (viz., 
John  15:  20,  sq.,  compared  with  Matt.  10:  24, 

25,  sq.,  and  John  15:  21,  compared  with  Matt. 
10:  22).  And  as  to  the  insertion  of  15:  26,  27, 
where  they  stand,  it  seems  to  me  far  more 
probable  that  Jesus  put  them  there  in  a  free, 
tender,  spontaneous  address  to  his  disciples — 
an  address  adapting  itself  moment  by  moment 
to  the  varying  emotions  reflected  from  the 
countenances  of  the  little  circle  of  friends 
about  him — than  that  the  reflective  skill  of 
the  writer  put  them  there,  though  out  of  their 
true  place.  But  whatever  may  be  thought  of 
the  probability  that  the  apostle  John  has  un- 
consciously brought  into  this  address  some- 
thing that  belongs  elsewhere,  it  is  manifestly 
very  improbable  that  a  Falsarius,  writing  in 
the  third,  fourth,  or  fifth  decade  of  the  second 
century,  when  the  Synoptical  Gospels  were 
already  well  known  and  highly  esteemed, 
would  have  ventured  upon  even  a  seeming 
contradiction  of  what  they  teach,  such  as  we 
are  supposed  to  have  in  the  words:  "These 
things  I  said  not  unto  you  from  the  begin- 
ning." "Would  not  such  a  writer  have  been 
extremely  solicitous  to  avoid  every  appear- 
ance of  inconsistency  with  the  earlier  testi- 
mony' ?  Besides,  what  conceivable  motive 
could  have  led  him  to  make  this  statement, 
with  no  evidence  of  its  truth  in  his  possession, 
and  to  expose  his  narrative  thereby  to  criti- 
cism? 


Ch.  XVI.] 


JOHN. 


313 


5  But  now  "  I  go  my  way  to  him  that  sent  me;  and 
none  of  you  asketh  uie,  Whithor  goest  thou? 

6  But  because  1  have  said  these  things  unto  you, 
'sorri(\v  hath  tilled  your  heart. 

7  Nevertheless  I  tell  you  the  truth;  Tt  is  expedient 
for  you  that  1  go  away:  for  if  I  go  not  away,  <^the  Com- 
forter will  not  come  uuto  you  ;  but  i*  if  1  depart,  I  will 
send  him  uuto  you. 


5  you.    But  now  I  go  unto  him  that  sent  me;  and  none 

6  of  you  asketh  me,  Whither  goest  thou?  Bui  be- 
cau.se  I  have  spoken  these  things  unto  you,  sorrow 

7  hath  filled  your  lieart.  Nevertheless  I  tell  you  the 
truth  ;  It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away:  for  if 
I  go  not  away,  the  i  Comforter  will  not  come  uuto 


a  ch.  7  :  33 ;  13 :  3 ;  U :  28 ;  ver.  10 :  16. 


..6  ch.  14:  1;  ver.  22 c  ch.  7:  39:  U:  16.  26;  15:  26.  ...d  Acts  2:  3);  Epii.  4  : 

vacate.     Or.  Helper.    Gr.  Paraclete. 


5-15.  Promise  of  the  Paraclete's 
Coming  and  Work. 

5.  But  now  I  go  my  way  {better,  go  avmy, 
or  depart)  to  him  that  sent  nie.  The  idea 
of  withdrawal  or  retirement  from  the  com- 
pany of  his  disciples,  if  not  from  the  world, 
is  expressed  by  the  word  {iiiraym)  here  used, 
while  the  words,  to  him  that  sent  me,  de- 
scribe the  goal  to  be  reached  by  that  with- 
drawal. And  none  of  you  asketh  me. 
Whither  goest  ^or,  w it hd rawest)  thou  ? 
They  hud  given  some  attention  to  the  thought 
of  his  leaving  them,  and  had  been  troubled 
by  it.  But  they  seem  to  have  considered  its 
effect  upon  themselves,  not  upon  him.  In 
other  words,  they  had  not  asked  whither  he 
was  going,  or  what  would  be  the  home  that 
be  would  reach.  Their  concern  for  them- 
selves had  filled  their  hearts,  and  prevented 
any  interest  in  respect  to  his  glory  and  joy 
with  the  Father. 

6.  But  because  I  have  said  (or,  spoken) 
these  things  unto  you,  sorrow  hath  filled 
your  heart.  They  should  have  rejoiced. 
Love  to  him  should  have  filled  their  hearts 
with  exceeding  gladness,  because  he  was 
about  to  resume  his  divine  estate  (comp.  14: 
28).  But  instead  of  this  they  were  sad.  The 
shadow  of  a  great  disappi)intment  was  gather- 
ing about  them.  While  they  still  clung  with 
desperate  tenacity  to  the  hope  that  he  would 
in  some  way  escape  the  malice  of  his  foes  and 
restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel,  every  sentence 
which  he  uttered  pointed  to  a  different  issue, 
and  tended  to  increase  their  sorrow.  Doubt- 
less this  was  very  manifest  in  their  looks  and 
gestures,  if  it  was  not  also  expressed  by  audi- 
ble sighs.  A  sorrowful  company  they  were 
at  this  moment. 

7.  Nevertheless  I  tell  you  the  truth. 
Purely  as  a  matter  of  taste  in  reproducing  the 
simplicitj'  of  John's  style,  we  should  prefer 
yet  to  nevertheless,  as  a  translation  of  the 
Greek  word  {aWa)  in  this  place;  and  the  same 
rendering  would  be  better  than  the  almost 
obsolete   howbeit,  in  John  7 :  27,  and  Acts  7 : 


48.  It  is  also  noteworthy  lat  the  I  is  em- 
phatic in  the  original;  probably  to  contrast 
his  own  correct  view  with  their  false  view. 
Thus:  "You  have  a  wrong  view  of  my  de- 
parture, deeming  it  your  greatest  calamity, 
and,  therefore,  sorrow  fills  your  hearts.  But 
I,  on  the  contrary,  tell  you  the  truth,  in  re- 
spect to  this  event,"  etc.  It  is  expedient 
for  you  that  I  go  away.  Thus  Jesus  de- 
clares that  if  they  were  to  disregard  his  con- 
dition and  look  only  at  their  own  good,  they 
had  more  to  gain  than  to  lose  by  his  de- 
parture. Their  intense  self-care  was,  there- 
fore, unwise  as  well  as  ungenerous,  though  he 
only  says  this  by  implication.  What  he  does 
say  directly,  after  gently  reminding  them  of 
their  disregard  of  his  interest  in  the  case,  is, 
that  henceforth  his  presence  was  not  the 
highest  blessing  they  could  have.  Not  that 
his  presence  was  anj'thing  less  than  gracious, 
uplifting,  and  sanctifying,  but  that  his  going 
awaj^  would  bring  to  them  light  and  help 
more  powerful,  more  spiritual,  and  better 
adapted  to  their  condition  in  days  to  come. 
This  he  proceeds  to  explain  :  for  if  I  go  not 
away,  the  Comforter  (or.  Advocate)  will 
not  come  unto  you.  What  is  to  be  under- 
stood by  this?  Could  not  the  Holy  Spirit 
work  in  the  hearts  of  men,  to  renew  and 
sanctify  them,  while  Christ  was  in  the  flesh? 
We  believe  that  he  could,  and  did.  But  for 
two  reasons,  at  least,  he  could  not,  without 
violence  to  the  principles  of  human  nature, 
do  for  them  all  that  he  did  after  the  return  of 
Jesus  to  his  Father.  (1)  The  visible  and 
natural  presence  of  Christ  was  an  obstacle  to 
the  fullest  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  certain 
directions.  For,  while  Jesus  was  there  in 
bodily  form,  a  true  man,  it  was  extremely 
difficult  for  them  to  think  of  his  reign  as 
purely  spiritual.  As  we  have  seen  all  along, 
thej'  shared,  with  the  bulk  of  their  nation,  the 
expectation  that  the  Messiah  would  be  a  tem- 
poral prince,  whatever  else  he  might  be.  And 
obviouslj'  nothing  short  of  his  departure  from 
earth   by   death,    would  thoroughly   destroy 


314 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVL 


8  And  when  he  is  come,  he  will  reprove  the  world  of  I 
sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment : 


8  you  ;  but  if  I  go,  I  will  send  him  unto  you.  And 
he,  when  he  is  come,  will  convict  the  world  in  re- 
spect of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment : 


that  expectation.  Moreover,  the  visible  pres- 
ence of  Christ,  as  a  teacher,  to  whom  they 
could  resort  for  answers  to  every  question, 
would  tend  to  prevent  their  gathering  up  and 
pondering,  with  suitable  care  and  prayer  for 
divine  help,  all  that  he  had  said  to  them.  It 
was  time  for  the  young  eagles  to  be  left  alone. 
(2)  The  departure  of  Christ  by  crucifixion, 
burial,  resurrection,  and  ascension,  were  parts 
of  his  work,  as  Mediator  between  God  and 
men,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  use,  and 
which  could  not  be  used  with  full  eifect,  until 
they  had  been  accomplished.  Hence  the  new 
and  mightier  work  of  the  Spirit  after  the  de- 
parture of  Jesus,  is  described  as  his  coming 
from  the  Father,  sent  by  the  Son  ;  and  as  that 
greater  work  could  not  be  performed  until 
Christ  had  been  crucified  and  glorified,  thus 
furnishing  the  truth  to  be  employed,  the 
coming  of  the  Spirit  for  that  work  is  repre- 
sented as  dependent  on  the  previous  de- 
parture of  Christ.  But  if  I  depart  (better, 
go),  I  will  send  him  unto  you.  Observe 
that  Christ  here  employs  a  word  which  sig- 
nifies merely  to  go,  to  make  a  journey,  not  to 
go  away.  Observe  also,  that  he  says  again 
(see  15:  26),  I  will  send  him  unto  you. 

8.  And  when  he  is  come,  etc.  A  more 
formally  exact  translation  would  read  :  And, 
having  come,  he  will  convict  the  world  con- 
cerning,  etc.  The  questions  to  be  answered 
by  th')  interpreter  of  this  verse  relate  solely 
to  the  meaning  of  the  words.  (1)  The 
Greek  word  (eAe'vfet),  is  translated  in  the  Com. 
Ver.  reprove,  in  the  Rev.  Ver.  convict,  and 
by  many  scholars,  convince.  Does  it  here 
signifj'  ivill  reprove,  or  loill  convince,  or  vnll 
convict?  The  first  definition  may  be  given 
to  the  verb  in  Luke  3:  19;  1  Tim.  5:  20;  Titus 
1 :  13  ;  Rev.  3 :  19.  But  it  does  not  satisfy  the 
demands  of  this  passage.  For,  while  it  is 
natural  to  speak  of  reproving  one  in  respect 
of  sin,  it  is  less  natural  to  speak  of  reproving 
one  in  respect  of  righteousness,  and  unnatu- 
ral to  speak  of  reproving  one  in  respect  of 
judgment.  Besides,  mere  reproof  expresses 
but  a  small  part  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  work  in 
relation  to  the  world,  especially  if  that  work 
is  performed  in  great  measure  through  the 
inspired  teaching  of  the  apostles.  (Comp. 
Notes  on  15:  26,  27).     This  definition  of  the 


word  is,  therefore,  unsatisfactory.  The  second 
meaning  is  given  to  the  verb  in  1  Cor.  14:  24: 
"If  all  prophesy,  and  there  come  in  one  that 
believeth  not,  or  one  unlearned,  he  is  con- 
vinced of  all,"  etc.  But  against  this  mean- 
ing, it  has  been  urged  that  "the  chief  part  of 
the  world  is  still  without  the  pale  of  the 
church,  and  that,  even  within  the  church,  the 
number  of  those  in  whom  a  living  spiritual 
conviction  of  sin  and  righteousness  and  judg- 
ment has  been  wrought,  is  by  no  means  the 
largest."  (Hare,  in  "Mission  of  the  Com- 
forter"). There  is  weight  in  this  considera- 
tion. Moreover,  this  rendering  carries  the 
mind  of  the  reader  directly  to  the  effect  of 
the  Paraclete's  work  in  the  hearts  of  men  — 
that  is,  to  the  subjective  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  while  the  Greek  term  gives  quite  as 
much  prominence  to  the  intrinsic  force  of  the 
argument  or  evidence  employed.  Thus  the 
word  reprove,  directs  attention  almost  ex- 
clusively to  tlie  objective  side  of  the  action, 
and  the  word  convince,  to  the  subjective, 
while  the  Greek  original  seems  to  embrace 
both.  The  third  definition  is  supported  by  the 
use  of  the  word  inch.  8:  46:  "Which  of  you 
convicteth  me  of  sin?"  and  in  James  2:9: 
"  But  if  ye  have  respect  of  persons,  ye  commit 
sin,  and  are  convicted  by  the  law  as  transgres- 
sors." Rev.  Ver.  Yet  the  legal  use  of  this 
English  word  has  a  tendency  to  restrict  its 
meaning,  and  on  this  account,  Noj'es's  trans- 
lation, namely:  "Shall  bring  conviction  to 
the  world,  etc.,"  is,  perhaps,  as  free  from  ob- 
jection as  any.  Liicke  remarks  that,  "In  the 
Greek  verb  used  by  Christ  is  always  implied 
the  refutation,  the  overcoming  of  an  error,  or 
wrong,  by  the  truth  and  the  right.  And 
when,  by  means  of  the  conviction  (eXryx<»s), 
the  truth  detects  the  error,  and  the  right  the 
wrong,  so  that  a  man  becomes  conscious  of 
them — then  arises  the  feeling  of  guilt,  which 
is  ever  painful.  And  hence  this  oflSce  has 
been  called  the  Punitive  Office  of  the  Spirit. 
The  effect  of  conviction  wrought  by  the 
Divine  Spirit  in  the  world,  may  be  to 
harden  ;  but  its  aim  is  the  deliverance  of  the 
world."  "With  the  last  statement  of  Liicke 
may  be  compared  the  words  of  Paul  in  2  Cor. 
2:  15,  16. 
(2)  By    the    world,  must  be    understood 


Ch.  XVI.] 


JOHN. 


315 


9  "Of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on  me ; 


I    9  of  sin,  because  tliey  believe  not  on  me ;  of  righteous- 


a  Acts  2  :  22-37. 


the  yet  unbelieving  part  of  mankind,  so  de- 
nominated because  it  was  the  far  hirger  part, 
when  these  words  were  spoken,  as  it  still  is. 
Only  a  few  of  the  Jews,  and  a  still  smaller 
number  of  the  Gentiles,  gave  any  evidence  of 
saving  faith  in  God.  "If  Luthardt  and 
Hengsteiiberg  maintain  that  the  Jewish  world 
is  primarily  meant,  this  is  certainly  correct 
as  to  the  mind  of  Jesus,  but  not  as  to  that  of 
the  Evangelist."—  Weiss.  We  enter  our  pro- 
test against  this  oracular  style  of  criticism. 
How  any  one  can  know  what  was  intended 
by  Jesus,  in  distinction  from  what  the  Evan- 
gelist understood  liim  to  mean,  is  left  without 
explanation  by  Weiss,  and  is  incomprehen- 
sible to  us.  That  Jesus  did  not  restrict  his 
own  kingdom,  or  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  ab- 
solutely and  forever,  to  the  seed  of  Abraham 
after  tlie  flesh,  is  clear  from  many  passages; 
and  if  he  looked  beyond  the  Israelites  at  all, 
there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  he  should 
not  have  done  this  in  his  last  protracted  inter- 
view with  his  disciples,  and  especially  when 
speaking  to  them  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit. 

(3)  The  words  sin,  righteousness,  and 
judgment,  are  used  in  a  general  sense,  and 
therefore  without  the  article  ;  but  a  conspicu- 
ous example  of  each  is  made  use  of  by  the 
Spirit,  according  to  the  next  verse,  in  demon- 
strating to  the  world  the  nature  of  sin,  of 
righteousness,  and  of  judgment.  The  Note 
of  Westcott  is  very  suggestive :  "The  three 
conceptions,  sin,  righteousness,  and  judg- 
ment, are  given  first  in  their  most  abstract 
and  general  form.  These  are  the  cardinal 
elements  in  the  determination  of  man's  spir- 
itual state.  In  these,  his  past  and  present  and 
future  are  severally  summed  up.  Then, 
when  the  mind  has  seized  the  broad  divisions 
of  the  spiritual  analysis,  the  central  fact  in 
regard  to  each  is  stated,  from  which  the  pro- 
cess of  testing,  of  revelation,  of  condemna- 
tion, proceeds.  In  each  case  the  world  was  in 
danger  of  fatal  error,  and  this  error  is  laid 
open  in  view  of  the  decisive  criterion  to 
which  it  is  brought."  Again:  "The  three 
subjects  are  placed  in  a  natural  and  signifi- 
cant order.  The  position  of  man  is  deter- 
mined first;  he  is  shown  to  have  fallen.  And 
then  the  positicn  of  the  two  spiritual  powers 


which  strive  for  the  mastery  over  him  is 
made  known  ;  Christ  has  risen  to  the  throne' 
of  glory ;  the  prince  of  the  world  has  been 
judged." 

(4)  The  preposition  translated  of,  signifies, 
in  this  place,  concerning,  or,  in  respect  of. 
The  conviction  of  the  world  will  have  respect 
to  the  nature  of  sin,  as  well  as  to  the  fact  of 
its  own  sinfulness,  etc. 

9.  Of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on 
me.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  Holy 
Spirit,  through  the  preaching  of  the  apostles, 
or  otherwise,  will  demonstrate  to  men  that 
their  sin  remains  unforgiven,  because  they  do 
not  believe  in  Christ — that,  like  the  venom  of 
the  fiery  flying  serpent,  it  will  continue  in 
them,  working  deatii,  because  they  reject  the 
only  cure,  the  Saviour  lifted  up  on  the  cross. 
Such  a  truth  is  plainly  taught  by  the  Lord 
himself  (ch.  3:u,  lo^,  but  it  is  hardly  found  in 
the  most  natural  interpretation  of  this  verse. 

Nor  does  it  mean  that  nothing  but  unbelief 
in  Christ  is  now  reckoned  as  sin,  so  that  the 
only  way  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  can  bring 
conviction  of  sin  to  the  mind  of  man,  since 
the  death  of  Christ,  is  by  proving  to  him  that 
he  does  not  believe  in  the  Lamb  of  God  that 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.  The  words 
of  Jesus  assume  that  unbelief  in  him  is  sin, 
and  therefore  proof  of  sin  in  all  those  who 
entertain  it;  but  the^'  do  not  saj-  or  imply  that 
it  is  the  only  sin  of  which  men  are  guilty. 
This  is  self-evident.  If  a  devout  father  were 
to  hear  his  son  blaspheme  the  name  of  God, 
he  might  attempt  to  bring  conviction  to  that 
son  concerning  the  presence  and  nature  of 
sin  in  his  heart,  by  directing  his  attention  to 
the  particular  and  awful  sin  of  blasphemy ; 
for  all  blasphemj'  is  sin,  and  illustrates  the 
nature  and  power  of  sin ;  but  the  father 
would  not  be  likely  to  think  that  proving  his 
son  a  sinner  because  a  blasphemer,  was 
equivalent  to  proving,  or  assuming,  that  he 
was  a  sinner  in  no  other  way. 

And  this  leads  to  the  true  interpretation  of 
Christ's  language  in  this  clause.  The  Holy 
Spirit  will  bring  conviction  to  mankind  con- 
cerning sin,  because  they  believe  not  in 
Christ,  which  is  a  great  and  fatal  sin.  In 
other  words,  the  reason  or  argument  which 


316 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVI, 


10  "Of  righteousness,  'because  I  go  to  my  Father, 
and  ye  see  me  no  more ; 

11  =  Of  judgment,  because  "^the  prince  of  this  world 
is  judged. 


10  ness,  because  I  go  to  the  Father,  and  ye  behold  me 

11  no  more;   of  judgment,  because  the  piiuce  of  this 


a  Acte2:32 6  ch.  3:  U;  5:32....c  Acts  26  :  IS d  Luke  10:  18;  ch.  12  :  31 ;  Eph.  2:2;  Col.  2  :  15  ;  Heb. 


the  Spirit  will  use  in  convicting  them  of  sin, 
will  be  their  unbelief  in  Jesus.  For  unbelief 
in  him  is  unbelief  in  God;  since  he  is  the  per- 
fect manifestation  of  God,  and  especially  of 
the  love  of  God.  And  unbelief  in  God  is  the 
central  principle  of  alienation  from  him. 
Now  that  Christ  has  come  and  revealed  the 
moral  perfection  of  the  Father,  a  rejection  of 
him  is  a  rejection  of  the  only  true  God,  and 
an  exaltation  of  self  to  the  throne.  "The 
Spirit,  tlierefore,  working  through  the  written 
and  spoken  word,  starts  from  the  fact  of  un- 
belief in  the  Son  of  man,  and  through  that, 
laj's  open  what  sin  is." — Westcott.  AVhether 
Jesus  intends  by  this  language  to  predict  any 
direct  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  un- 
godly men,  leading  them  to  receive  the  truth, 
it  is,  perhaps,  impossible  to  know;  but  there 
is  nothing  in  his  words  incompatible  with 
such  a  view.  Yet  it  cannot  be  rightly  infer- 
red from  the  expression  "will  convict  the 
world,'^  that  ever^^  person  who  was  then  liv- 
ing, or  who  has  since  lived,  was  to  be  shown 
that  he  had  sinned  b\-  rejecting  Christ.  "The 
world"  is  a  general  expression,  denoting  the 
sphere  of  the  Spirit's  direct  or  mediate  opera- 
tion.    (Comp.  12:32.) 

lO.  Of  righteousness,  etc.  {'L\t.,  And  of 
righteousness,  becaitse  I  go  to  the  Father.) 
The  work  of  the  Spirit  here  described,  though 
separable  in  thought,  is  inseparable  in  fact  from 
the  work  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  previous 
verse.  For  unbelief  in  Christ  cannot  be  a  sin, 
or  an  illustration  of  all  sin,  unless  he  is  what 
he  claims  to  be — the  Holj'^  One  of  God.  His 
righteousness  is  therefore  presupposed  in  the 
sinfulness  of  rejecting  him.  And  in  order  to 
bring  home  to  conscience  and  heart  the  sin  of 
not  trusting  in  him  and  not  obeying  him,  his 
moral  perfection,  his  sinless  character  as  the 
Son  of  God,  must  be  clearly  established. 
Moreover,  in  exhibiting  and  proving  his 
moral  perfection,  the  clearest  possible  light 
is  cast  upon  the  nature  and  beautj'  of  righte- 
ousness itself.  He  was  ever  at  one  with  his 
Father,  ever  ready  to  do  his  Father's  will, 
ever  illustrating  divine  truth,  goodness,  and 
mercy,  in  his  conduct.     He  was  holj',  harm- 


less, undefiled,  proving  himself  to  be  abso- 
lutely righteous,  whether  regarded  as  the  Son 
of  God,  or  as  the  Son  of  man. 

But  what  was  the  ultimate  verification  of 
all  his  claims,  the  invincible  proof  that  he 
was  the  "only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of 
grace  and  truth?"  It  was  his  going  to  the 
Father.  And  observe  that  to  the  Father  are 
the  emphatic  words,  made  so  by  their  position 
in  the  Greek  sentence, — and  to  the  Father  I 
go."  This  fact  will  be  used  by  the  Spirit  in 
demonstrating  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 
By  his  voluntary  and  sacrificial  death  in 
obedience  to  the  Father's  will,  b^-  his  glorious 
resurrection  from  the  dead  and  his  manifesta- 
tion of  himself  to  his  disciples  at  sundry  times 
during  forty  daj's,  by  his  separation  from 
them  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  his  ascen- 
sion towards  heaven,  till  a  cloud  received  him 
out  of  their  sight,  and  b^'  the  coming  of  the 
Spirit  with  might3'  power  on  the  Day  of  Pen- 
tecost, according  to  his  promise,  will  that 
Spirit,  speaking  through  the  apostles,  convict 
the  unbelieving  world  of  the  righteousness  of 
him  who  had  been  slain  its  a  malefactor,  con- 
vict the  unbelieving  people  that  they  had 
"denied  the  Holy  One  and  the  Just  One," 
asking  for  "a  murderer  to  be  granted"  them. 
(Acts2:  36;  3:  u.)  The  words,  and  ye  see  (or, 
behold)  me  no  more,  are  probablj-  added  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  that  his  departure  to 
the  Father  would  be  a  permanent  withdrawal 
from  his  earthly  and  visible  connection  with 
them,  and  a  permanent  return  to  a  higher 
state  of  being.  Is  it  too  much  to  say  that  he 
did  not  wish  them  to  expect  any  renewal  of 
this  sensible  communion  with  him  on  earth? 
and  that  he  would  have  them  welcome  com- 
munion with  him  by  the  Spirit  as  a  greater 
blessing?  It  was  "expedient"  for  them  that 
he  should  go  away,  and  the  Advocate  come 
in  his  place;  for,  be  it  said  with  all  reverence, 
the  Advocate  could  hereafter  give  them  more 
of  Christ  than  could  Jesus  himself  by  his 
bodily  presence. 

11.  Of  judgment,  etc.  (Lit.,  and  of  jtidg- 
ment,  because  the  prince  of  this  irorld  hath 
been  judged.)    By  reason  of  the  perfect  tense, 


Ch.  XVI.] 


JOHN. 


317 


12  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  "but  ye 
cannot  bear  them  now. 

13  Howbeit  wlien  he, 'the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come, 
«he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth:  I'or  he  shall  not 
speak  of  himself;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear, 
that  shall  he  speak:  and  he  will  shew  you  things  to 
come. 


12  world  hath  been  judged.  I  have  yet  many  things 
to  say   unto   you,  but  ye  caunot   bear  theiu   now. 

13  Howbeit  when  he,  the  .Spirit  of  truih,  is  come,  he 
shall  guide  you  into  all  the  truth:  for  he  shall 
not  speak  from  himself;  hut  what  things  soever 
he  sball  hear,  these  shall  he  speak:  and  he  shall 
declare    unto    you    the    things    that    are  to  come. 


(Mark  4:  33;  1  Cor.  3:2;  Heb.  5: 12....i  ch.  14:  17;  15:  26....cch.  14: 


1  Jotao  i  :  20,  27. 


this  language  signifies  that  the  prince  of  this 
world  has  been  and  is  condemned.  The  point 
of  view  is  naturally  that  of  the  Spirit's  agency 
after  the  Pentecost  in  convicting  the  world. 
Then  Christ's  work  on  earth  will  have  been 
completed;  and  that  work,  all  along  a  perfect 
expression  of  divine  holiness  and  grace,  but 
culminating  at  last  in  the  gift  of  his  life  as  a 
ransom  for  sinners,  and  approved  by  God 
through  his  resurrection  from  the  dead  and 
enthronement  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father, 
•will  be  made  by  the  Spirit  to  appear  in  its 
true  character,  as  a  permanent,  irreversible 
condemnatit)n  of  Satan,  the  prince  of  this 
world.  "This  passage  differs  in  form  only 
from  12:  31,  32;  the  three  actors  mentioned 
the  world,  Satan,  and  Jesus,  are  the  same,  as 
well  as  the  parts  which  are  assigned  to  them. 
Our  passage  adds  only  this  idea:  that  it  is  the 
Holy  Spirit  who  will  unfold  to  men  the 
grandeur  of  the  invisible  drama  accomplished 
on  the  cross.  Thenceforth  some  remain  in 
the  sin  of  unbelief,  and  share  the  judgment  of 
the  prince  of  this  world.  Others  take  their 
stand  on  the  side  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
and  are  withdrawn  from  the  judgment  pro- 
nounced upon  Satan."  —  Godet. 

Observe,  also,  (1)  The  world  has  a  prince. 
Men  who  are  not  the  servants  of  Christ  are 
the  servants  of  Satan,  whose  personality  is 
clearly  assumed  in  this  language.  (2)  The 
fact  that  their  prince  has  been  condemned  is 
evidence  that  those  who  follow  him  will  be 
condemned  likewise,  unless  they  repent.  The 
decision  against  the  prince  will  pro\e  to  be  a 
decision  against  all  who  maintain  his  cause. 
(3)  The  act  expressed  by  the  word  translated 
judged  (icpcVw),  is  always,  in  the  Gospel  of 
John,  the  premise  to  a  judicial  punitive  act. — 
Cremer.  In  other  words,  judgment  looks 
forward  to  punishment.  Those  who  persist  in 
rejecting  Christ  will  at  last  hear  the  sentence: 
"  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting 
fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels." 

(Matt.  25:  41). 

12-15»  The  Inspiration  of  the  Spirit 
Promised  to  the  Eleven. 


12.    I  have   yet  many  things,  etc.      A 

natural  introduction  to  the  following  promise, 
which  assures  them  of  all  needed  instruction 
through  the  Holy  Spirit.  Much  as  Jesus  has 
taught  them  in  public  with  others,  and  in 
private  for  their  special  benefit,  there  is  much 
more  which  he  has  forborne  to  teach,  because 
of  their  prejudice  and  lack  of  spiritual  dis- 
cernment. There  is  a  fullness  of  truth  in 
Christ  which  he  cannot  even  now  impart  to 
them.  Just  what  these  many  things  are, 
the  Saviour  does  not  of  course  specify,  but 
they  all  pertained,  no  doubt,  to  his  spiritual 
reign  over  mankind;  and  many  of  them  were 
revealed  to  the  apostles  by  the  Paraclete. 
Some  of  them  may  be,  redemption  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  the  relation  of  the  Mosaic 
law  to  grace,  the  acceptance  of  the  heathen 
upon  repentance  and  fiiith  without  submission 
to  the  Levitical  law,  the  ultimate  turning  of 
the  Jews  to  Christ,  and  the  great  apostasy 
before  the  end  of  the  Christian  Dispensation. 
Germs  of  nearly  all  these  doctrines  may,  in- 
deed, be  found  in  the  sayings  of  Christ,  but 
they  were  more  fully  developed  by  the  apos- 
tles under  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit. 

13.  Howbeit  when  he,  the  Spirit  of 
truth,  is  come,  etc.  But  is  a  simpler  and 
more  intelligible  rendering  of  the  Greek  con- 
nective here  employed  (5e),  than  howbeit. 
So  Noyes,  Am.  Bible  Union,  Kevised  Eng- 
lish Bible,  and  others.  Here  again,  for  the 
third  time,  is  the  Advocate  described  as  the 
Spirit  of  truth.  Wherefore?  In  the  first 
instance  (»:i7),  there  is  nothing  but  the  ex- 
pression itself  to  suggest  its  meaning.  In  the 
second  (i5-26),  the  accompanying  statement, 
shall  testify  (or,  he  will  bear  witness  of  me), 
points  to  his  office  as  the  Kevealer  of  truth  in 
respect  to  Christ.  And  in  the  present  con- 
nection, all  that  is  said  represents  him  as  the 
Kevealer  of  Christian  truth  to  the  apostles. 
With  these  passages,  compare  1  John  5 :  6, 
Avhich  says:  ''It  is  the  Spirit  that  beareth 
witness,  because  the  Spirit  is  truths  Com- 
pare also  the  language  of  John  in  his  First 
Epistle  (iJohii4:6),  where  *' the  spirit  of  truth" 


318 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


is  contrasted  with  ''the  spirit  of  error," 
though  some  do  not  admit  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  referred  to;  and  his  language  in 
Kev.  19:  10,  "/o/*  the  testunony  of  Jesus  is  the 
spirit  of  prophecy,"  where  again  it  is  doubtful 
whether  "i/te  spirit  of  prophecy"  refers  to 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is,  however,  certain  that 
the  gift  of  prophecj'  is  represented  by  the 
sacred  writers  as  a  gift  imparted  by  the  Spirit 

(e.g..  Acts  1:  16;  'J  ;  4,  17  ;  19:  6;  21:  U;  2S :  '25 ;  1  Cor.  12:  8,  10; 

u:ij.  We  understand,  therefore,  that  the 
revelation  of  Christian  truth  is  here  set  forth 
as  a  characteristic  attribute  or  function  of  the 
Holy  Spirit;  indeed,  as  so  characteristic  of 
him,  that  it  is  represented  as  a  qualitj'  of  his 
nature.  Revealing  the  truth  may  be  re- 
garded as  a  part  of  his  normal  action.  So 
important  is  a  correct  view  of  this  matter, 
that  we  subjoin  the  explanations  of  a  few  emi- 
nent commentators.  "  The  Spirit  of  truth — 
i.  e.,  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  the  principle  of 
truth,  who  teaches  it  (i6:i3),  and  by  its  power 
imparts  self-reliance,  decision,  and  firmness 
(Matt.  10:19,  sq.),  who,  therefore,  takes  the  place 
of  Christ  as  Helper."— i)eTre!!<e.  "  The  Holy 
Spirit,  who  is  po.ssessor,  bearer,  and  dispenser 
of  the  divine  truth.  He  is  the  divine  Prin- 
ciple of  revelation,  by  whose  action  in  human 
hearts  the  redemptive  truth  given  by  God  in 
Christ  — that  is,  the  truth  by  way  of  pre- 
eminence—is transformed  into  knowledge,  is 
vitally  appropriated,  and  is  brought  tc  power- 
ful expression.— Meyer.  "This  expression 
certainlj'  implies,  not  merely  that  the  Spirit 
communicates  the  truth  (Luth.,  Godet),  or 
possesses  and  communicates  it  {Hengst.),  but 
the  genitive  {of  truth)  is  one  of  quality,  only 
the  truth  is  not  a  subjective  attribute,  which 
the  Spirit  has,  but  the  objective  divine  truth 
which  [so  to  speak]  constitutes  his  nature,  be- 
cause it  belongs  to  that  nature  to  possess  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  so  to  be  the 
bearer  of  the  revelation  of  God." — Weiss. 
"The  Spirit  by  whom  the  truth  finds  expres- 
sion, and  is  brought  to  man's  spirit."  —  Ife.s^- 
cott.  "He  is  called  the  Spirit  of  truth,  be- 
cause part  of  his  special  office  is  to  bring  truth 
home  to  the  hearts  of  ir:en,  to  carry  it  from 
the  material  to  the  moral  sphere,  to  make  it 
something  more  than  a  collection  of  signs 
seen  or  heard — a  living  power  in  living  men." 
—  Watkins.  He  will  guide  you  into  all 
truth.      A  very  significant  promise!      For, 


First — the  domain  into  which  apostles  are  to 
be  guided  is  the  whole  truth;  that  is,  Christian 
truth  in  its  totality.  The  Spirit  will  lead 
them  into  the  truth  as  it  is  summed  up  in 
Jesus  Christ;  he  will  open  to  them  the  mystery 
of  God,  and  of  Christ,  in  whom  are  hid  all  the 
treasures  of  loisdo in  and  knowledge  (Coi.  2: 2,3). 
From  the  promise  of  Jesus,  as  well  as  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  it  may  be  inferred  that 
the  various  truths  of  the  Christian  religion 
are  self-consistent,  and  that,  if  clearly  appre- 
hended, they  will  be  seen  to  form  a  single, 
harmonious  sj'stem.  From  this  promise  it 
may  also  be  inferred  that,  sooner  or  later,  the 
Eleven  were  brought  into  such  a  state  of  mind 
and  heart  as  to  profit  by  a  knowledge  of  Chris- 
tian truth  in  its  completeness.  For  the  Spirit 
would  not  show  them  the  way  to  this  before 
thej'  were  prepared  in  the  temper  of  their 
hearts  to  follow  that  way. 

Secondly — in  accord  with  what  has  now  been 
said,  the  verb  will  guide,  suggests  a  gradual 
and  progressive  work — a  work  that  presup- 
poses a  teachable  spirit  in  the  disciples,  and 
that  adapts  itself,  with  absolute  wisdom,  to 
their  inward  condition.  And  this  condition 
must,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  aff'ected  by 
the  ever  changing  demands  of  their  ministry'. 
Hence  we  conclude  that  the  Spirit  was  not  to 
bring  the  whole  sum  of  Christian  truth  to  the 
minds  of  the  apostles  in  a  moment,  and,  as  it 
were,  without  effort  or  inquiry  on  their  part. 
No  doubt  that  a  great  light  shone  into  their 
minds  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost — a  light  which 
revealed  to  them  very  clearl3'  the  meaning  of 
Christ's  death  and  resurrection  ;  but  there 
was  much  truth  to  be  revealed  when  that  day 
of  wonders  closed.  The  central  truth  of  their 
Lord's  redemptive  victor^'  was  enough  to  fill 
their  minds  and  hearts.  If  they  could  think 
of  more  than  this,  the  fulfillment  of  prophecy 
in  the  miracle  before  their  ej-es  was  likely  to 
absorb  their  attention.  How  the  Gentiles 
were  to  be  made  partakers  of  the  great  salva- 
tioft,  whether  with  or  without  submitting  to 
the  Mosaic  ritual,  was  a  question  which  did 
not,  perhaps,  enter  their  minds.  And  the 
same  might  be  said  of  many  other  questions 
not  unimportant  to  the  puritj'  and  progress  of 
the  new  religion. 

Thirdly — if  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  show- 
ing the  apostles  the  way  into  the  whole  truth, 
as  it  is  in  Jesus,  was  thus  gradual  and  pro- 


Ch.  XVI.] 


JOHK 


319 


gressive,  adapting  itself  evermore  to  their 
spiritual  capacity  and  need,  it  is  more  tlian 
probable  tbat  some  of  them  were  outstripped 
by  others  in  the  attainment  of  knowledge, 
and,  indeed,  that  some  died  without  reaching 
the  same  heights  and  depths  of  spiritual  un- 
derstanding as  others.  Can  it  be  reasonably 
assumed  that  James  the  Less,  who  suffered 
martyrdom  at  Jerusalem,  in  A.  D.  44,  was  as 
profoundly  versed  in  the  whole  system  of 
Christian  truth,  as  was  Paul  at  his  death,  in 
A.  D.  66,  or  John  at  his  death,  in  A.  D.  98?  If 
not,  it  is  easy  to  account  for  the  apparently 
different  degrees  of  doctrinal  development  at- 
tained by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
even  without  insisting  upon  the  obvious  fact 
that  several  of  them  have  not  written  enough 
to  give  us  anything  more  than  fragments  of 
their  belief.  It  is  sufficient  to  find  that  every 
one  appears  to  hold  the  truth,  as  far  as  his 
knowledge  extends,  and  that  together  they 
present  to  us  the  facts  and  principles  of  a 
great  system.  For  he  shall  not  speak  of 
himself.  (Rather,  for  he  will  not  speak  from 
himself);  and  the  meaning  is,  not  that  the 
Spirit  will  refrain  from  saying  anything 
about  himself— e.  g.,  as  to  his  own  knowledge 

(lCor.2:10),  or  power  (l  Cor.  2  :  4  ;  Heb. '2  :  4),  or  di- 
vinity (i  Cor.  12:8-11) — but  that  he  will  not  speak 
from  his  own  impulse  or  will,  apart  from  the 
will  of  God.  (Comp.  5:  19,80).  Godet  re- 
marks: "The  infallibility  of  this  guide  springs 
from  the  same  cause  as  that  of  Jesus  himself 
(7:17,18),  namely,  from  the  absence  of  all 
egoistic  and  therefore  evil  productivity.  All 
his  revelations  will  be  drawn  from  the  trea- 
sure of  objective  divinity  ;  and  so  his  teaching 
will  be  only  an  initiation  into  the  divine 
reality  of  things.  Satan  is  a  liar  just  because 
he  proceeds  according  to  a  wholly  different 
method,  drawing  that  which  he  speaks  from 
his  own  source.  (8:44),"  But  whatsoever 
he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speak.  Or, 
more  strictly,  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear 
will  he  speak.  The  insertion  of  that  or  these^ 
before  will  he  speak,  seems  to  be  unneces- 
sary ;  as  is  also  the  insertion  of  things,  unless 
it  be  to  indicate  that  the  word  represented  by 
whatsoever  is  plural  (oo-a).  Shall  hear; 
from  whom  ?  Probably  from  the  Father,  or 
the  Son ;  for  he  comes  as  the  Representative 
of  both,  and  all  things  that  are  the  Father's 
are  the    Son's    also.      Both  have    the    same 


thoughts,  plans,  affections,  desires.  In  nature, 
in  power,  and  in  aim,  they  are  one.  The 
commentators  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  hearing  and  speaking  here  predicted  do 
not  refer  to  single  acts,  accomplished  once 
for  all,  but  to  a  series  of  acts,  or,  rather,  to 
continuous  action  of  the  kinds  specified.  This 
agrees  with  the  interpretation  given  above  to 
the  verb  will  guide.  Of  course,  hearing  and 
speaking  are  used  in  a  figurative  sense,  to 
denote  that  wiiat  the  Spirit  imparts  to  the 
minds  of  the  apostles  by  a  process  inscrutable, 
but  equivalent  in  ett'ect  to  speaking,  is  from 
the  Father's  mind  as  really  as  it  would  be  if 
heard  by  the  Spirit  in  words  uttered  by  the 
Father  or  the  Son.  And  he  will  show  you 
things  to  come.  More  exactly,  loill  declare 
unto  you  the  things  that  are  to  come.  None 
but  God  sees  the  end  of  all  things  from  the 
beginning.  The  Omniscient  alone  can  fore- 
know the  course  which  will  be  taken  in  every 
particular  emergency  by  beings  truly  free. 
Hence,  the  prediction  of  future  events  which 
are  contingent  on  human  action  is  impossible 
to  any  but  those  who  are  divinely  taught.  But 
Jesus  here  promises  his  disciples  that  the  Spirit 
of  truth  will  announce  to  them  the  things 
that  are  to  come,  and  thus  enable  them  to 
preach  the  same  things  to  other  men.  What, 
then,  is  to  be  understood  by  the  things  that 
are  to  come?  Certainly  not  all  future  events 
in  time  and  eternity  ;  for  it  would  never  occur 
to  the  Eleven  to  give  the  words  so  comprehen- 
sive a  meaning.  Nor  can  they  signify  all  the 
events  connected  with  the  reign  of  Christ  or 
the  last  judgment;  for  this  interpretation 
would  be  equally  absurd.  Westcott,  how- 
ever, goes  too  far  by  way  of  limitation,  when 
he  says :  "  The  reference  is,  no  doubt,  mainly 
to  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  church,  as 
representing  hereafter  the  divine  order,  in 
place  of  the  Jewish  economy."  It  is  far 
more  natural  to  find  the  fulfillment  of  this 
promise  in  the  revelations  made  to  the  apostle 
John  in  Patmos,  together  with  such  as  were 

made  to  Paul — e.  g.,  ^l  Thess.  4:  ISsq. ;  2Thess.  2:  l-I.'; 
ICor.  15:23-28,  52;  Rom.  10:11-25),   and    Other    apOStlcs. 

Godet  remarks  that  "the  words  of  14:  26  con- 
tain the  formula  of  the  inspiration  of  our 
Gospels,  while  this  verse,  the  13th,  gives  that 
of  the  inspiration  of  the  Epistles  and  the 
Apocalj'pse." 


320 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


14  He  shall  glorify  me;  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine, 
and  shall  shew  it  unto  you. 

15  "All  thinKs  that  the  Father  hath  are  mine:  there- 
fore said  1,  that  he  shall  take  of  mine,  and  shall  shew  it 
unto  you. 


14  He  shall   glorify  me:    for  he  shall  take  of  mine, 

15  and  shall  declare  it  unto  you.  All  things  what- 
soever the  Father  hath  are  mine:  therefore  said 
I,  that  he  taketh   of   miue,  and    shall    declare    it 


a  Matt.  11 :  27 ;  ch.  3 :  35 ;  13 :  3 ;  17 :  10. 


14.  He  shall  (or,  will)  glorify  me.     The 

me  is  empliatic.  Bengel  says:  "The  Son 
glorifies  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  the 
Son."  This  is  true,  but  it  is  also  true  that  the 
Father  glorifies  the  Son  (see  8:  54;  13:32;  17: 

1,  5;  Acts  3:  13);  and  that  the  Son  glorifies 
the  Spirit  (see  ver.  7  and  14:  18  sq. ).  It  is 
evident  from  these  words,  especially  when 
they  are  compared  with  17  :  1,  5  and  Heb.  12: 

2,  3,  that  Jesus  Christ,  though  he  was  the 
most  unselfish  being  that  ever  walked  the 
earth,  was  keenly  alive  to  the  reproaches 
heaped  upon  him,  and  painfully  conscious  of 
his  name  being  cast  out  as  evil.  And  now,  as 
he  draws  near  the  conflict  in  Gethsemane  and 
the  mocking  and  bufleting  that  followed,  as 
he  feels  more  deeply,  perhaps,  than  ever  be- 
fore, the  ignominy  of  being  "despised  and 
rejected  of  men,"  as  he  sees  himself  assailed 
by  the  treachery  of  Judas,  the  denials  of 
Petor,  and  the  implacable  hatred  of  the 
rulers,  he  appears  to  welcome  the  certainty 
that  his  character  will  be  loved,  his  work  ap- 
preciated, and  his  name  honored  by  an  ever- 
increasing  multitude  of  disciples,  as  the  ages 
come  and  go.  He  foresees,  not  without  joy, 
that  through  the  Spirit's  work  in  the  apostles, 
his  name  will  at  last  be  exalted  above  every 
name.  But  how  would  such  words  sound,  if 
they  fell  from  the  lips  of  Peter,  or  John,  or 
Paul?  What  should  we  think  of  any  mere 
man,  however  great  his  abilitj',  or  high  his 
office,  or  remarkable  his  services,  who  should 
predict  that  the  Spirit  of  God  would  be  sent 
into  the  world  to  glorify  him?  Should  we 
not  be  filled  with  pity,  or  horror?  Should 
we  not  pronounce  him  either  insane  or  pro- 
fane, either  a  madman  or  a  blasphemer? 
"Why  then  do  we  not  think  this  of  Jesus,  the 
Christ?  Why  does  every  candid  reader  of 
the  Gospels  refuse  to  accept  either  of  these 
alternatives?  Is  it  not  because  the  whole 
record  of  Christ's  life  proves  that  he  was 
more  than  simply  man? — that  he  was  divine 
as  well  as  human,  and  therefore  entitled  to 
glory  and  praise  without  limit? 

But  how  will  the  work  of  the  Spirit  glorify 
Jesus?  The  reason  is  given  in  the  next  clause: 


for  he  shall  (or,  will)  receive  of  mine, 
and  shall  (or,  will)  declare  it  unto  you. 
The  word  mine  need  not  b;;  restricted.  The 
term  itself  and  the  compass  of  the  apostolic 
message  concerning  Christ  justify  the  broadest 
sense.  Jesus  might  have  unfolded  its  mean- 
ing by  saying:  "My  existence  as  the  Eternal 
Word  with  the  Father,  my  birth  into  human 
nature,  my  perfect  communion  with  God,  my 
perfect  sympathy  with  men,  my  works  and 
words  of  power  and  wisdom,  of  love  and  com- 
passion, my  propitiatory  suft'erings  and  death, 
my  resurrection  and  ascension,  my  priestly 
intercession  and  regal  authority,  my  second 
coming  to  raise  tlie  dead,  and  judge  the  living 
and  the  dead."  These  things,  and  such  as 
these,  are  comprehended  in  the  single  word 
miue.  Says  Luthardt:  "The  Spirit,  there- 
fore, which  proceeds  from  the  Father,  has 
Christ  for  the  substance  and  aim  of  all  his 
activity.  And  all  progress  of  the  church  in 
knowledge  will  only  consist  in  greater  study 
of  Christ,  in  deeper,  more  comprehensive  un- 
derstanding of  Christ,  as  all  growth  in  holi- 
ness will  consist  only  in  the  more  thorough, 
more  manifold  representation  of  the  image  of 
Christ." 

15.  All  things  that  (whatsoever)  the 
Father  hath  are  mine.  "This  verse,"  it 
has  been  remarked,  "solves  the  contradiction, 
that  in  ver.  13,  the  speaking  of  the  Spirit  was 
traced  back  to  his  hearing  from  the  Father, 
and  in  ver.  14,  to  his  taking  of  what  belongs 
to  Christ."  But  there  is  no  contradiction  to 
solve;  for  the  thirteenth  verse  merely  affirms 
that  "  whatsoever  {things)  he  shall  hear,  (not, 
hear  from  the  Father),  that  shall,  or  will  he 
speak."  It  is  never  wise  to  make  a  contradic- 
tion, in  order  to  solve  it.  Whether,  as  some 
suppose,  "all  things  that  the  Father  hath," 
refers  only  to  the  treasures  of  the  Father's 
knowledge,  may  be  doubtful ;  it  seems  to  em- 
brace at  least  all  the  great  facts,  as  well  as  the 
spiritual  principles,  or  doctrines,  involved  in 
the  salvation  of  men.  These  all  centre  in 
Christ — and  Christ,  in  his  person  and  work,  js 
a  revelation  of  the  Father's  mind  and  will. 
Moreover,  if  the  knowledge  of  Christ  is  the 


Ch.  XV L] 


JOHN. 


321 


same  as  that  of  the  Father,  so  is  his  will,  and 
so  is  his  love.  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  un- 
derstand  by   all   things    that  the   Father 

hath,  all  the  Father's  purposes  and  deeds  of 
grace,  accomplished,  or  yet  to  be  accom- 
plished, by  the  Saviour  in  his  mediatorial 
office.  These  belong  to  the  Son,  as  well  as  to 
the  Father,  and  of  these  the  Spirit  taketh 
(the  present  denoting  a  constant  relation)  and 
will  declare  unto  the  disciples. 

"In  this  section,  (ver.  5-i5),''  remarks  Weiss, 
"everything  is  brought  together  which  Jesus 
had  said  in  respect  to  the  sending  of  the  Para- 
clete, and  in  ver.  5-7  is  preserved  the  recollec- 
tion that  this  belonged  to  the  farewell  dis- 
course of  Jesus  to  his  disciples.  We  have 
already  seen,  in  the  remark  on  14:  24,  that 
Jesus  must  have  said  more  than  is  preserved 
in  the  Synoptical  tradition  Matt.  10:  19,  sq., 
(=John  15:  25  sq.  Comp.  the  remark  on  16: 
4),  concerning  the  sending  of  the  Spirit. 
What  the  Evangelist  has  inserted  by  way  of 
anticipation  from  these  communications  in 
14:  15-17,  is  only  the  reverse  side  of  ver.  8-11. 
The  Spirit  has  no  immediate  relation  to  the 
world ;  but  on  the  ground  of  the  definite  exal- 
tation of  Jesus,  he  will  convict  the  world, 
through  the  testimony  of  the  apostles,  of  its 
sin  of  unbelief,  in  such  a  way  as  must  win 
from  it  whatever  is  to  be  won.  The  highly 
original  manner  in  which  this  is  drawn  out  in  I 
ver.  8-11,  argues  for  the  essential  genuineness 
of  this  saying  of  Christ,  which  has  its  sub- 
stantial analogon  in  the  word  respecting  the 

sign    of    Jonah.       (Mutt.  12:39  sq. ;  compare  John  8:  28.) 

Even  so  is  14:  26  only  an  anticipation  of 
16:  12-15,  where  the  relation  of  the  Para- 
clete to  the  progressive  knowledge  of  the  dis- 
ciples is  developed.  But,  however  certain  it 
is  that  Jesus  must  have  spoken  also  on  this 
matter,  it  is  equally  certain  that  precisely 
these  sayings  of  his  were  only  reproduced  as 
the  apostle's  own  experience  had  taught  him 
to  understand  them.  Under  the  guidance  of 
the  Spirit  he  was  conscious  of  having  gained 
a  fuller  and  deeper  understanding  of  the  per- 
son and  work  of  Christ,  and  that  this  was 
nothing  else  than  what  the  testimony  of 
Christ  himself  already  contained,  although  in 
a  form  (for  pedagogic  reasons),  more  obscure 
and  limited.  On  this  very  account  he  must 
reproduce  the  same,  as  the  Spirit,  who  was  his 
guide  into  all  truth,  had  taught  him  to  under- 


stand it.  This  reproduction  of  the  Para- 
clete's promise  is  the  key  to  his  peculiar  treat- 
ment and  reproduction  of  the  discourse  of 
Jesus  in  his  gospel." 

We  are  ready  to  grant  that  the  aged  Evan- 
gelist was  conscious  of  having  gained  by  ex- 
perience a  fuller  and  deeper  knowledge  of  the 
person  and  work  of  Christ,  than  he  had  when 
listening  to  his  words  in  the  evening  before 
his  betrayal.  We  are  also  ready  to  grant 
that  he  was  conscious  of  having  heard  from 
Christ  testimonies  concerning  the  Spirit 
which  seemed  to  him  to  predict  and  account 
for  this  increase  of  knowledge  which  he  had 
gained.  But  we  do  not  discover  the  proof 
that  he  enlarged  or  clarified  the  promise  of 
Jesus  into  conformity  with  his  own  experi- 
ence, that  he  laid  hold  of  some  dark  saying 
of  Jesus,  and,  clothing  it  in  a  garb  furnished 
by  his  own  spiritual  experience,  presented  it 
transfigured  to  his  readers.  Much  less  do  we 
perceive  that  Matt.  12:  39  sq.,  is  any  proper 
analogon  of  John  16 :  8-11,  or  that  there  is 
any  improbability  in  supposing  that  Jesus 
anticipated  in  a  brief  saying  (u:26)  what  at  a 
later  moment  he  repeated  and  expanded. 
That  John  would  not  have  consciously  modi- 
fied the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  it  agree  with  his  own  experience,  may 
be  safely  inferred  from  all  that  i«  known  of 
his  character,  and  especially  of  his  reverence 
for  Christ,  and  also  from  his  habit  of  record- 
ing and  explaining  dark  sayings — (6.3.2:21,22;  7: 
38,39;  12:32,  a,')).  And  further,  if  some  great 
promise  of  the  Spirit's  mission  was  really 
made  to  the  disciples  on  their  way  to  the  gar- 
den, as  Weiss  admits,  what  reason  is  there  for 
the  assumption  that  it  was  very  brief  or  ob- 
scure? What  ground  for  thinking  that  it 
was  given  in  a  single  saying,  instead  of  being 
presented  at  three  diflTerent  points  in  the 
Lord's  conversation  with  his  troubled  friends? 
Our  judgment  is,  that  if  the  Evangelist  has 
unconsciou.sly  transformed  the  discourse  of 
Jesu.s,  the  fact  cannot  be  learned  from  his 
record  of  the  Saviour's  words  in  respect  to 
the  coming  and  ministry  of  the  Paraclete, 
but  must  be  discovered  somewhere  else. 

Combining  now  the  statements  respecting 
the  Paraclete  in  the  record  of  John  (1*:  16,  17, 
26;  13:28,27;  16:7-15),  we  learn  that  he  was  to  be 
(i)  a  messenger  from  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
— *.  e.,  sent  by  the  Father  and  the  Son,  (ii)  at 


322 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


16  "Alittle  while,  and  ye  shall  not  see  me:  and  again, 
a.  little  while,  and  ye  shall  see  me,  <>  because  I  go  to  the 
Father. 

17  Then  said  some  of  his  disciples  among  them- 
selves, What  is  this  that  he  saith  unto  us,  A  little 
while,  and  ye  shall  not  see  me:  and  again,  a  little 
while,  and  ye  shall  see  me :  and,  Because  1  go  to  the 
Father '! 


16  unto  you.  A  little  while,  and  ye  behold  me  no 
more;    and   again   a  little   while,  and  ye  shall  see 

17  me.  Some  of  his  disciples  therefore  said  one  to 
another,  What  is  this  that  he  saith  unto  us,  A  little 
while,  and  ye  behold  me  not ;  and  again  a  little 
while,  and  ye  shall  see  me:   and.  Because  1  go  to 


o  ch.  7  :  33  ;  13  :  33  ;  14  :  19  ;  ver.  10 6  ch.  13  :  3  ;  ver.  28. 


the  request  of  the  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  and  (iii) 
for  the  purpose  of  taking  the  Son's  place  with 
the  disciples,  as  an  Advocate  or  Helper.  Ful- 
filling this  office  he  was  (1)  to  bring  to  their 
remembrance  all  the  teachings  of  Christ,  (2) 
to  show  unto  them  the  things  that  were  to 
come,  and  (3)  to  guide  them  into  all  Christian 
truth,  some  part  of  which  the3'  were  not  yet 
able  to  bear.  By  the  help  of  the  Paniclete 
they  were  (A)  to  bear  witness  in  respect  to 
Christ,  both  as  to  his  works  and  as  to  his 
words,  (B)  to  receive  from  him,  through  the 
Spirit,  other  truth,  nay,  the  whole  truth,  to 
be  used  in  their  ministry,  and  (C)  to  convict 
the  world  by  their  preaching,  (a)  in  respect 
to  sin,  as  illustrated  by  the  world's  rejection 
of  Christ,  (b)  in  respect  to  righteousness,  as 
illustrated  by  Christ's  character  and  work, 
and  (c)  in  respect  to  judgment,  as  illustrated 
by  the  condemnation  of  the  Prince  of  this 
•world. 

16-24.  Christ's  Withdrawal  axd  Ke- 
rrtiRN ;   the  Disciples'  Sorrow  and  Joy. 

16.  A  little  Avhile,  and  ye  shall  not  see 
me.  (Better,  and  ye  behold  me  no  more).  That 
is— "after  a  little  while  ye  will  no  longer 
behold  me,  as  ye  now  do,  with  the  eye  of 
sense" — a  saying  which  refers  to  his  ap- 
proaching death  and  return  to  the  Father. 
But  does  not  this  saying  contradict  14:  19: 
"Yet  a  little  while,  and  the  world  seeth  (be- 
holdeth)  me  no  more,  but  ye  see  (behold) 
me"?  The  same  verb,  indeed,  is  found  in 
both  passages;  but  words  must  be  interpreted 
in  the  light  of  the  connection  in  which  they 
stand.  There  are  different  kinds  of  behold- 
ing, as  there  are  of  seeing.  In  14:  19,  the 
word  behold  is  applied  to  an  act  purely  spir- 
itual;  in  this  verse,  to  an  act  dependent  on 
the  sense.  In  comparison  with  the  world, 
the  disciples  never  ceased  to  behold  Jesus ;  for 
the  wondering  gaze  of  their  s'^uls  was  directed 
to  him  by  the  Spirit,  who  brought  his  words 
and  deeds  to  their  remembrance.  But  here 
they  are  said  to  behold  him  ino  more— i.  e., 


with  their  bodily  senses.  They  are  no  longer 
to  watch  with  admiration  the  changing  ex- 
pression of  his  countenance,  or  to  listen  with 
rapt  attention  to  the  familiar  tones  of  his 
voice.  Such  beholding  was  presently  to 
cease.  And  again  a  little  Avhile,  and  ye 
shall  (or,  will)  see  me  ;  for  it  is  difficult  to 
ascertain  whether  the  force  of  the  Greek 
future  is  better  represented  in  this  case  by 
shall  see,  or  by  will  see.  Again  a  little 
while.  This  second  brief  period,  though 
longer  than  the  first,  only  extended  from  his 
death  to  the  Day  of  Pentecost.  The  seeing 
here  predicted  or  promised  is  not  the  same  as 
that  referred  to  in  14:  19,  where  the  word 
translated  in  Rev.  Ver  behold  (flewpet)  is  used. 
The  interpretation  of  Grimm  is  as  follows  : 
"The  apostles  are  said  to  see  (oi/feo-flai)  Christ, 
because  they  were  about  to  perceive  his  invis- 
ible presence  through  his  action  in  their  hearts 
by  the  Holy  Spirit."  In  support  of  this  view 
Godet  remarks:  "If  the  seeing  promised 
refers  directly  to  the  manifestations  of  Jesus 
after  the  resurrection,  to  his  disciples,  there  is 
no  connection  between  ver.  15  and  IG.  But 
the  omission,  of  any  connective  suggests  a  tie 
of  profound  sentiment  binding  together  the 
two  verses.  This  proves  it  necessary  to  apply 
the  'seeing'  [promised]  to  the  illumination  of 
the  Pentecost;  thus  the  relation  to  the  pre- 
ceding presents  no  more  difficulty.  Filled 
with  the  idea  of  his  glorification  by  the  Spirit, 
in  the  hearts  of  the  disciples  (ver.  u),  Jesus 
calls  this  return  a  mutual  'seeing  again.'  ' 
The  last  clause  of  the  Common  Version,  be- 
cause I  go  to  the  Father,  is  probably  an 
interpolation  occasioned  b3'  ver.  17,  where  it 
is  undoubtedh'  genuine.  It  is  omitted  in  this 
place  by  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  "Westcott 
and  Hort,  and  bracketed  by  Lachmann.  Sev- 
eral of  the  earliest  3ISS.— r  .7..  X  R  D  L,  and 
some  of  the  earliest  versions,  do  not  have  it. 
17.  Then  said  some  of  his  disciples 
among  themselves.  The  Revised  Version 
— Some  of  his  disciples  therefore  said  one  to 


Ch.  XVI.] 


JOHN. 


323 


18  They  said  therefore,  Wliat  is  this  that  he  saith,  A  |  18  the  Father  ?    They  said  therefore,  What  is  this  that 
little  while?  we  caunot  tell  what  he  saith.  |       hesaith,  A  little  while?  We  know  not  what  he  saith. 


another,  is  a  more  exact  translation  of  the 
Greek  text.  We  may  reasonably  inier  from 
this  statement  that  the  perplexity  which  is 
described  in  the  following  words  was  not  ex- 
pressed, if  it  was  felt,  by  all  the  disciples. 
Moreover,  those  who  felt  it  did  not  go  to 
Jesus  with  it,  but  spoke  of  their  difficulty  to 
one  another,  aside  and  in  a  low  voice,  prob- 
ably at  a  pause  in  the  discourse  of  their  Mas- 
ter, flow  distinctly  does  the  Evangelist  re- 
call the  scene,  and  how  precisely  does  he 
describe  it!  What  is  this  that  he  saith 
unto  us,  etc.  That  is,  "What  does  this 
mean?"  They  hear  his  words,  but^they  do 
not  really  understand  them.  Nor  is  this 
very  strange;  for  surely  there  was  something 
contradictory  in  his  language,  if  all  of  it  was 
taken  in  a  literal  sense.  How  could  he  depart 
to  the  Father,  so  that  they  should  see  him  no 
more,  if,  after  a  little  while,  they  were  again 
to  see  him.  (ver.  loandver.  16)  ?  We  Sympathize 
with  their  perplexity,  and  can  readily  under- 
stand their  questioning.  But  no  great  teacher 
always  employs  words  in  their  primary,  lit- 
eral, and  semi-phj'sical  sense.  That  which  is 
natural  is  first;  afterwards  that  which  is  spir- 
itual. The  lower  form  of  knowledge  is  a  type 
and  shadow  of  the  higher;  the  common  sig- 
nification of  words  is  but  the  vestibule  to 
their  higher  and  holier  signification.  Thus, 
seeing  by  means  of  the  bodily  eye  is  analo- 
gous to  seeing  with  the  mind's  eye — i.  e.,  with 
the  mind  itself.  And  probably  no  teacher 
ever  employed  language  in  a  figurative  and 
spiritual  sense  more  frequently  than  Jesus 
Christ.  Many  of  his  sayings  were,  therefore, 
misunderstood,  or  very  imperfectly  compre- 
hended, at  first.  This  he  knew;  but  he  was 
not  deterred  from  uttering  them  by  his  knowl- 
edge of  the  way  they  would  be  received. 

The  remainder  of  the  verse  is  translated  in 
the  Revised  Version  somewhat  more  exactly 
than  in  the  Common  Version ;  for  the  former 
substitutes  behold  me  not,  for  shall  not  see 
me — a  manifest  improvement,  since  the  verb 
is  in  the  present  tense,  and  is  a  different 
word  (SewpetTe)  from  the  one  translated  shall 
see  [oifiefTde),  in  the  next  clause.  Yet  neither 
version  gives  the  exact  meaning  of  the  last 
clause.  For  the  verb  in  that  clause  (inrayco) 
signifies  to  depart,  or,  go  away,  rather  than 


simply  to  go.  The  disciples  repeat  the  very 
terms  used  by  Jesus  (see  ver.  5,  6,  10),  and  if 
the  several  verbs  employed  by  him  were  each 
represented  by  a  diti'erent  English  verb,  this 
fact  would  be  more  obvious.  Thus:  What  is 
this  that  he  saith  unto  us,  A  little  while  and  ye 
bcholdme  not;  and  again  a  little  while,  and  ye 
shall  (or,  will)  see  me  ;  and  because  I  depart 
to  the  Father  ? 

18.  They  said  therefore,  (or,  they  were 
saying.)  The  scene  rises  before  the  mind  of 
the  writer,  and  he  repeats,  more  briefly,  the 
substance  of  the  comment  which  some  of  the 
disciples  were  making  in  a  low  tone  to  one 
another;  but  adding  to  what  he  had  before 
noted,  their  explicit  confession  of  inability  to 
understand  their  Lord's  words:  We  cannot 
tell  (or,  know  wo^)what  he  saith — i.  e.,  the 
meaning  of  what  he  saith.  From  what  fol- 
lows it  is  clear  that  these  whispered  question- 
ings and  confessions  of  perplexity  were  not 
the  mutterings  of  a  querulous  spirit.  Why, 
then,  did  not  the  disciples,  who  were  thus 
commenting  to  one  another  on  their  Master's 
words,  turn  rather  at  once,  and  at  first,  to  him 
for  an  explanation?  Because  he  was  felt  by 
them  to  be  their  Lord  and  Teacher;  one  to 
whom  they  looked  up  with  peculiar  rever- 
ence, and  not  infrequently  with  awe.  None 
of  them,  save  Peter,  who  was  naturally  bold, 
even  to  rashness,  in  personal  intercourse,  had 
been  wont  to  approach  him  without  a  sense  of 
his  mysterious  greatness.  The  sweetness  and 
lowliness  of  his  spirit  must  have  been  mingled 
with  a  divine  authority  and  dignity,  which 
rendered  easy  familiarity  impossible.  And, 
doubtless,  the  spiritual  glory  of  Jesus  had 
been  very  conspicuous  during  the  last  few 
hours,  and  while  he  was  uttering  the  sayings 
which  perplexed  them.  A  careful  student  of 
the  Apostolic  Epistles  will  perceive  that  no 
one  of  their  writers,  not  even  Peter,  was  accus- 
tomed to  place  himself  on  such  a  level  of  per- 
sonal intimacy  and  familiarity  with  the  Lord 
Jesus,  as  has  been  assumed  in  prayer  and 
conversation  by  some  Christians  of  the  present 
day.  And  this  fact,  if  it  be  a  fact,  suggests  a 
grave  doubt  whether  the  tone  of  modern 
piety  is  in  as  perfect  accord  as  it  should  be 
with  the  whole  nature  of  Christ,  whether  the 
element  of  reverence  is  not  wanting,  or,  at 


824 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


19  Now  Jesus  knew  that  they  were  desirous  to 
ask  him,  and  said  unto  them,  Do  ye  inquire  among 
yourselves  of  that  I  said,  A  little  whPie,  and  ye  shall 
not  see  me:  and  again,  a  little  while,  and  ye  shall  see 
me? 

20  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  That  ye  shall 
■weep  and  lament,  but  the  world  shall  rejoice:  and  ye 
shall  be  sorrowlul,  but  your  sorrow  shall  be  turned  into 
joy. 


19  Jesus  perceived  that  they  were  desirous  to  ask  him, 
and  he  said  unto  them,  Do  ye  inquire  among  your- 
selves concerning  this,  that  I  said,  A  little  while, 
and  ye  behold  me  not,  and  again  a  little  while,  and 

20  ye  shall  see  me?  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
that  ye  shall  weep  and  lament,  but  the  world  shall 
rejoice :    ye   shall  be   sorrowful,   but    your    sorrow 


least,  feeble,  to  the  serious  injury  of  religious 
life. 

19.  Now  Jesus  knew.  The  word  trans- 
lated now  {ovf),  is  omitted  by  Tischendorf, 
Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort,  in  agreement 
with  the  oldest  MSS.  X  B  D  L,  1,  33,  157. 
Knew — i.  e.,  perceived  by  the  power  which 
he  had  to  read  the  hearts  of  men  (comp.  2 : 
25) ;  though  it  is  quite  possible  that  their  looks 
and  tones  of  voice  may  have  been  observed 
by  him,  while  their  words  were  too  indistinct 
to  be  heard.  That  they  were  desirous  to 
ask  him.  See  the  remarks  on  ver.  18,  for 
the  probable  reason  why  they  refrained  from 
doing  what  they  desired  to  do.  Observe,  also, 
that  "he  knew,  not  only  the  whisperings  of 
the  disciples,  and  their  inquiries  among  them- 
selves, about  the  sense  of  his  words,  but,  also, 
their  secret  desires  to  ask  him  concerning  it." 
— GUI.  It  was  not  because  of  "a  dark  pre- 
sentiment" (  Weiss),  but  because  of  their  rev- 
erence for  the  Lord;  and  they  spoke  of  their 
perplexity  to  one  another,  rather  than  to  him, 
with  such  a  spirit  that  he  was  willing  to  re- 
move that  perplexity,  as  far  as  possible.  "Yet, 
as  usual,  he  gives  in  the  following  no  exposi- 
tion of  his  meaning,  but  describes  the  succes- 
sion of  pain  and  joy  which  the  'not-seeing' 
and  the  'seeing-again'  will  bring,  for  the 
purpose  of  preparing  them  practically  for 
that  which  was  ready  to  take  place." — Weiss. 

20.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  This 
emphasis  of  expression  is,  as  we  have  before 
remarked,  peculiar  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and 
to  the  sayings  of  Christ  in  this  Gospel.  It  is 
a  solemn  call  to  the  disciples  to  give  heed  to 
what  he  is  about  to  say,  by  notifying  them 
beforehand  of  its  great  practical  importance. 
By  such  turns  of  expression,  as  well  as  by  its 
wonderful  dignity  and  simplicity,  does  the 
record  of  John  reflect,  as  from  the  surface  of 
a  polished  mirror,  the  theanthropic  life  of  the 
Lord.  That  ye  shall  weep  and  lament. 
The  words  weep  and  lament,  refer  to  the 
unrestrained  expression  of  grief  by  means  of 
tears  and  wailing,  "bj'  mournful  gestures 
and  doleful   voice,"  which  has  always  been 


customary  in  the  East  upon  the  death  of  kin- 
dred or  friends.  (Comp.  Gen.  50:  10,11; 
Luke  23 :  27 ;  John  11 :  31-33 ;  Mark  5 :  38,  39. 
"How  exactly,  at  the  moment  of  the  Sa- 
viour's arrival,  did  the  house  of  Jairus  cor- 
respond with  the  condition  of  one,  at  the 
present  time,  in  which  a  death  has  just  taken 
place !  It  resounded  with  the  same  boisterous 
expressions  of  grief,  for  which  the  nations  of 
the  East  are  still  noted." — Hackett.  Of 
course,  these  open  manifestations  of  grief  are, 
in  this  case,  revelations  of  the  heart  The  ye 
is  emphatic,  in  contrast  with  the  world. 
But  the  world  shall  rejoice.  Better,  ^vill 
rejoice;  for  this  is  simply  a  prediction  of 
what  will  be  the  feeling  of  unbelieving  men, 
the  foes  of  Jesus  Christ,  at  his  crucifixion. 
(Comp.  Matt.  27:  28-31,  39-44;  Mark  15:  29- 
32 ;  Luke  23:  35-39).  "  Not  only  the  common 
people,  but  the  chief  priests,  with  the  scribes 
and  elders,  mocked  at  him,  insulted  him,  and 
triumphed  over  him,  when  on  the  cross,  being 
glad  at  heart  they  had  got  him  there;  im- 
agining now,  that  it  was  all  over,  the  day  was 
their  own,  and  they  should  be  no  more  dis- 
turbed by  Christ  and  his  followers."  —  Gill. 
Yes,  "the  world  will  rejoice"  at  the  cruci- 
fixion of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  The  leaders  of 
the  people  will  exult,  for  a  brief  period,  in 
the  accomplishment  of  their  purpose.  "With 
hearts  full  of  religious  pride,  bent  upon  re- 
taining power,  angry  at  reproof,  and  blind  to 
the  transcendent  purity  and  loveliness  of 
the  Saviour's  character,  they  will  cry:  His 
blood  be  upon  us  and  upon  our  children,  and 
will  glory  in  his  bitter  death  as  in  victory 
over  a  relentless  foe.  Alas,  there  have  been 
some  in  every  age  who  have  walked  in  the 
footsteps  of  these  leaders  of  the  people— some, 
who,  in  the  name  of  God  and  religion,  have 
persecuted  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  some 
who  have  thought  that  in  killing  men  of 
whom  the  world  was  not  worthy,  they  were 
presenting  an  acceptable  offering  to  God 
(ver.  2),  as  well  as  confirming  their  own  power. 
And  ye  shall  be  sorrowful.  Omit  and, 
with  the  Revised  Version,  the  critical  editors, 


Ch.  XVI.] 


JOHN. 


)2o 


21  "A  woman  when  she  is  in  travail  hath  sor- 
row, because  her  hour  is  couie :  but  us  soon  as  she 
is  delivered  of  the  child,  she  renienibereth  no  more 
the  anguish,  for  joy  that  a  man  ia  born  into  the 
world. 

22  'And  ye  now  therefore  have  sorrow :  but  I  will  see 
you  again,  and  i^your  heart  shall  rejoice,  and  your  joy 
DO  man  taketh  from  you. 


21  shall  be  turned  into  joy.  A  woman  when  she  is  in 
travail  hath  sorrow,  because  her  hour  i.s  come:  but 
when  she  is  delivered  of  the  child,  she  remeuiberelh 
no  more  the  anguish,  for  the  joy  that  a  luan  is  boru 

22  into  the  world.  And  ye  therefore  now  have  sor- 
row: but  1  will  see  you  again,  and  your  heart  shall 
rejoice,  and  your  joy  no  one  takeili  away  from  you 


alsa.  26:  17 b  ver.  6 e  Luke  24  :  41,  52;  ch.  14:  1,  27;  20  :  20  ;  Acts  2:  46;  13:  52;  1  Pet.  1: 


L.,  T.,  Treg.,  W.  &  H.,  and  the  early  MSS. 
N*  B  D  A,  etc.  The  sense  is  not  affected  by 
the  omission.  Being  sorrowful  diflers  from 
weeping  and  lamenting,  as  heart-grief  diflers 
from  the  cry  of  sorrow  or  the  funeral  dirge 
by  which  it  is  expressed.  Weak  as  the  dis- 
ciples might  prove  to  be  in  the  first  great  trial 
of  their  faith,  their  love  was  genuine,  and  the 
Saviour  knew  that  he  would  have  in  them 
real  mourners.  Their  lamentation  would  be 
no  formal  act,  no  perfunctory  wailing  for 
custom's  sake,  but  a  cry  as  of  children  be- 
reaved of  their  father,  and  left  orphans  in 
the  world — a  bitter  cry  of  disappointed  hope 
and  wounded  affection.  But  your  sorrow 
shall  be  turned  into  joy.  That  is,  not 
merely  succeeded  by  joy,  but  turned  into  joy. 
The  very  fountain  of  their  sorrow  will  become 
a  fountain  of  joy.  The  very  ground  of  their 
lamentation  will  become  a  ground  of  re- 
joicing. They  will,  ere  long,  glory  in  the 
cross  of  Christ.  (Gai. 6:i4.)  What  they  have 
deprecated  as  the  greatest  possible  calamity, 
and  what  they  will  mourn  over  for  a  little 
while,  as  the  end  of  all  their  hopes,  namely, 
their  Lord's  voluntary  submission  to  death, 
will  become  their  inspiration  and  strength  ; 
and,  as  the  central  act  of  redemption,  the  key- 
note of  their  sweetest  song;  nay,  the  very 
heart  of  their  message  to  a  world  Ij'ing  in  the 
wicked  one.  This  change  of  grief  into  joy, 
is  next  set  forth  bj'  a  striking  illustration. 

21.  A  woman,  when  she  is  in  travail. 
Literally,  the  tvotnan,  whoever  she  may  be, 
because  the  experience  is  universal.  But  the 
English  idiom  for  generic  nouns  calls  for  the 
indefinite  article,  or  for  none  at  all.  Hence, 
in  the  present  case,  a  woman,  when  she  is 
in  travail  (present  tense,  tUtji),  refers  to  the 
protracted  anguish  of  child-birth,  when  great 
physical  pain  and  mental  anxiety  must  be 
borne.  Her  hour — the  hour  of  parturition, 
which  is  so  decisive  and  important  to  the 
mother.  For  joy  that  a  man  is  born  into 
the  world.  She  forgets  the  anguish  of  child- 
birth  in  the  joy  of   maternity.      The  same 


illustration  is  employed  by  the  prophets.  (See 
Isa.  21:  3;  26:  17,  18;  66:  7,8;  Jer.  4:31;  22: 
23 ;  30  :  6 ;  Hos.  13 :  13,  14 ;  Mic.  4  :  9,  10). 
The  child,  (lit.,  the  little  child,  t6  watSioc), 
to  whom  she  has  given  birth  is  a  human 
being,  possessing  already,  in  the  mother's  eye, 
all  the  mental  and  moral  qualities  which  will 
be  unfolded  by  years  of  discipline  and  expe- 
rience; a  human  being  worthy  of  a  place  in 
the  great  world-order,  and  certain  to  continue 
in  existence  forever.  "As  the  pains  of  a 
woman  in  travail  are  very  sharp  and  severe, 
and  the  distress  of  her  mind  about  the  issue 
of  things  respecting  herself  and  her  oflspring 
is  very  great,  so  would  be  the  grief  and 
trouble  of  the  disciples  on  account  of  the 
death  of  their  Lord  and  Master;  but,  as  when 
a  woman  is  safely  delivered  of  a  child,  she  is 
so  filled  with  joy  that  her  sorrow  is  remem- 
bered no  more;  so  should  it  be  with  them, 
when  Christ  should  appear  to  them."  —  Gill. 
22.  And  ye  now  therefore  have  sorrow. 
Therefore — that  is,  in  harmony  with  this 
illustration,  which  shows  that  great  sorrow  is 
often  changed  into  great  joy.  According  to 
Lachmann,  supported  by  some  of  the  early 
MSS.— (6.  g.,  H'  AD  L,  33),  we  ought  to  read 
will  have,  instead  of  have  ;  but  Tischendorf, 
Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort,  with  the  Anglo- 
American  Revisers,  supported  by  better  man- 
uscript authority — (e.  5^.,  K*  B  C  Y  T  a  a  n, 
etc.),  retain  have  as  the  original  text.  Prob- 
ably the  future  tense  was  substituted  for  the 
present  by  some  transcriber  who  thought  it  a 
more  exact  expression  of  the  fact.  But  this 
was  a  mistake;  for  the  sorrow  of  the  disciples 
at  the  prospect  of  their  Lord's  withdrawal 
from  them,  had  already  begun  to  weigh  them 
down  ;  and  its  greatest  pressure,  at  the  actual 
death  of  .Jesus  in  the  near  future,  was  as  dis- 
tinctly present  to  his  mind,  as  if  they  were 
now  sinking  to  the  earth  under  it.  Some  in- 
terpreters endeavor  to  find  a  distinction  be- 
tween having  sorrow  and  being  sorrovful,  but 
without  much  success.  The  two  forms  of 
expression  are  equivalent  each  to  the  other. 


326                                                    JOHK 

[Ch.  XVI. 

23   And   in    that   day   ye   shall    ask    me    nothing.    23  And  in  that 
''Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Whatsoever  ye  shall         verily,  I  say 
ask  the  Father  in  my  name,  he  will  give  it  you.                      the   Father, 

day  ye  shall  lask  me  nothing.     Verily, 
unto  you,  If  ye  sliali  ask  anything  of 
he    will    give   it    you    in    my    name. 

a  Matt.  7  :  7 ;  ch.  14 :  13  ;  15 :  16. 1  Or,  ask  me  «o 

question. 

Bnt  I  will  see  you  again.  Implying, 
doubtless,  that  in  some  true  sense  of  the 
words,  they  also  should  see  him  again.  But 
liow  ?  In  his  resurrection  body,  during  the 
forty  days  before  he  was  taken  up?  Such  a 
view  does  not  agree  with  the  following  con- 
text. At  his  parousla,  or  second  advent,  in 
visible  form  ?  Neither  does  the  context  favor 
this.  It  remains  for  us,  then,  to  suppose  that 
he  had  in  mind  his  return  through  the  Holy 
Spirit  from  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  onward. 
Westcott  remarks  on  the  promise,  I  will 
see  you  again,  as  distinguished  from  the 
promise,  "Ye  shall  see  me"  (ver.  19),  that  "the 
highest  blessing  lies,  not  in  the  thought  that 
God  is  the  object  of  our  regard,  but  that 
we  are  objects  of  God's  regard.  (Comp.  Gal. 
4:9;  1  Cor.  8:  3;  John  10:  14,  15)."  There 
may  be  psychological  truth  in  this  remark, 
but  there  is  certainly  no  evidence  that  Jesus 
had  any  such  distinction  in  mind  when  he 
uttered  the  words,  I  will  see  you  again. 
And  your  heart  shall  rejoice.  Joy  of 
heart  is  real,  inward  joy;  and  this  form  of 
expression  is  just  as  full  of  meaning  as  the 
form  "your  heart  will  have  joy."  It  signi- 
fies the  full  realization  of  joy.  And  your  joy 
no  man  taketh  from  you.  "Your  sorrow 
will  be  brief,  your  joy  permanent  and  secure. 
Enemies  may  assail  you,  and  even  put  j'ou  to 
death  ;  but  they  cannot  rob  you  of  that  "joy 
in  the  Holy  Spirit  which  I  will  impart  to  you." 
There  is  considerable  manuscript  authority 
for  the  future  ivUl  take,  instead  of  the  present 
taketh;  (viz.,  for  the  future,  B*  D  T,  Vulg., 
Cop.,  Arm.,  Aeth.,  and  for  the  present  X  A  C 
D"  L  Y  A  A  n,  Early  Latin,  Syr.);  but  the 
predominance  of  testimony  favors  the  com- 
mon text,  and  a  copyist  would  be  more  likely 
to  substitute  the  future  for  the  present,  than 
the  present  for  the  future;  not  because  the 
future  is  the  stronger  form  of  statement,  but 
because  it  is  more  exact  to  a  prosaic  mind. 

23.  And  in  that  day  ye  shall  ask  me 
nothing.  Or,  icill  ask — the  sentence  being, 
not  a  prohibition,  but  a  prediction.  The 
word  me  is  emphatic,  in  contrast  with  the 
Father,  in  the  next  clause.  That  day  was 
to  begin  with  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  at 


the  next  Pentecost.  From  that  time  forward 
they  were  to  be  taught  by  the  Paraclete,  and 
would  no  more  come  to  Jesus,  personally, 
with  their  questions  and  perplexities.  The 
word  ask  (iptuTav),  seems  to  be  used  in  the 
same  sense  as  in  ver.  19,  viz.,  to  ask  for  infor- 
mation, explanation,  instruction,  to  propose  u 
question.  His  seeing  them  again  will  not, 
then,  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  restore  their 
present  relations  to  him  as  a  Teacher.  This 
change  in  their  relations  may  be  due  to  the 
circumstance  that  Jesus  will  be  no  longer 
visibly-  present  with  them,  and  to  the  circum- 
stance that  the  Holy  Spirit  will  then  be,  in  a 
special  sense,  their  Teacher.  The  discourse 
of  Peter,  Acts  2:  14  sq.,  illustrates  the  change 
which  took  place  in  the  disciples  when  the 
Spirit  came  upon  them  with  power.  Their 
views  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  were  thence- 
forth clear  and  consistent.  Verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  you — thus  calling  their  attention 
to  the  importance  of  what  he  was  to  say. 
Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in 
my  name,  he  will  give  it  you.  According 
to  Tisch.,  Treg.,  W.  &  H.,  and  the  Anglo- 
American  Revisers,  the  true  text  requires  the 
following  translation :  If  ye  shall  ask  the 
Father  anything,  he  will  give  it  you  in  my 
name.  Two  reasons  justify  the  position  here 
given  to  the  words,  in  my  name  :  (1)  A  pre- 
ponderance of  early  manuscript  evidence 
(N*  B  C  T.,  etc.,  requiring  the  change,  and 
A  C'  D  T,  etc.,  forbiding  it) ;  and  (2)  the  prob- 
ability of  a  transposition,  by  which  this  clause 
would  be  connected  with  praying  to  God,  as 
in  14:  13;  15:  16,  and  the  improbability'  of  a 
transposition,  by  which  it  would  be  connected 
(in  this  case  only)  with  God's  act  in  answer- 
ing prayer.  But  if  the  Revised  Version  rep- 
resents the  original  text,  how  is  the  expres- 
sion, he  will  give  it  you  in  my  name,  to  be 
understood  ?  When  a  believer  prays  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  he  prays  with  a  full  recogni- 
tion and  acknowledgment  of  the  mediatorship 
of  Christ,  or  in  living  fellowship  with  Christ. 
(Comp.  on  14:  13).  So,  when  the  Father,  in 
the  name  of  Christ,  answers  prayer,  he  gives 
the  blessing  which  is  asked,  in  recognition  of 
the  mediatorship  of  Christ.     The  Saviour  and 


Ch.  XVL] 


JOHN. 


327 


24    Ilitherlo  have  ye  asked  nothing  in   my   name: 
ask,  aud  ye  shall  receive,  "that  your  joy  may  be  lull. 


Hitherto  have  ye  asked  nothing  in  my  name:  a-sk, 
aud  ye  shall  receive,  that  your  joy  may  be  wade 
lull. 


acb.  16:  11. 


his  work  are,  so  to  speak,  the  moral  sphere  in 
which  all  is  done,  and  so  the  condition  on 
which  all  depends.  If  this  be  correct,  the 
doctrinal  significance  of  Christ's  language  in 
this  passage  is  very  great,  amounting  to  no 
less  than  this ;  that  by  every  answer  to  prayer, 
the  Father  honors  the  Son,  or  that  the  inter- 
position of  Christ  in  behalf  of  sinners  is 
recognized  in  ever3'  answer  to  prayer.  This 
interpretation  of  tlie  clause  is  supported  by 
Grimm:  "God  is  said  to  do  something  'in 
the  name  of  Christ' — i.  e.,  mindful  of  the 
name  of  Christ,  moved  by  the  name  of 
Christ,  on  account  of  Christ"  (s.  v.  hvoiJLa,  2)  e). 
The  same  view  is  probably  intended  by 
Winer:  "Something  takes  place  'in  a  per- 
son's name,'  when  it  is  comprehended  or  em- 
braced in  his  name,  is  to  be  set  down  to  his 
personal  activitj',"  even  though  he  is  not  the 
nearest  or  immediate  subject  of  the  action. 
(See  p.  390). 

24.  Hitherto  have  ye  asked  nothing  in 
my  name.  This  language  is  important  as  a 
clue  to  the  precise  import  of  the  last  clause, 
in  my  name.  For  these  eleven  disciples 
were  certainly  men  of  prayer.  Imperfect  as 
they  were  in  Christian  knowledge  and  faith, 
they  must  have  been  renewed  and  devout 
men,  who  are  never  prayerless  men.  More- 
over, they  had  said  to  Jesus:  "Lord,  teach 
us  to  pray,  as  John  also  taught  his  disciples," 
and  in  response  to  their  request,  he  had  given 
them  a  model  of  prayer,  very  nearly  identical 
with  that  contained  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  (Comp.  Luke  11:  1-4  with  Matt.  6: 
9-13).  But  this  model  had  in  it  no  allusion  to 
himself,  and  there  is  reason  to  believe,  apart 
from  this  statement  of  Christ,  that  they  had 
not  heretofore  offered  prayer  to  God  in  the 
name  of  Christ. 

These  disciples  were  true  followers  of 
Christ.  He  counted  them  his  friends.  He 
was  assured  of  their  love.  They  were  in  him, 
by  virtue  of  a  living  fellowship,  as  truly  as 
the  branch  is  in  the  vine.  Therefore,  during 
the  two  years  or  more  of  their  special  disciple- 
ship,  they  had  prayed  in  spiritual  union  with 
him.  To  have  a  Christ-like  spirit  in  prayer, 
is  not,  then,  what  is  meant  by  praying  in  the 


name  of  Christ.  Such  a  temper  had  been 
possessed,  in  some  measure,  by  the  Eleven,  for 
months,  as,  indeed,  it  had  been  possessed  by 
the  saints  of  earlier  ages.  These  disciples 
had  known  Jesus  as  a  Divine  Teacher,  the 
true  Messiah,  the  Holy  One  of  God,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God,  but  thej'  had  not  known 
him  as  their  high  priest  and  sin-ottering,  as 
"the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin 
of  the  world."  (i:29).  They  had  not  seen  in  him 
"a  projjitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours 
only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  wiiole  world." 
(iJoim2:2).  They  had  not  yet  comprehended 
his  words  affirming  that  he  "came,  not  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give 
his  life  a  ransom  for  many."  (Matt.  20:  28).  This 
was  one  of  the  "many  things"  which  they 
had  been  unable  to  bear  (ver.  12),  and  which 
could  not  be  taught  them  effectually,  save  by 
his  death  and  resurrection,  and  the  illumina- 
tion of  the  Spirit. 

From  that  time  forward,  to  ask  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  would  be  to  recognize  and 
honor  him  as  One  who  had  purchased  them 
with  his  blood  (Acts20:28),  who  was  their 
"Advocate  with  the  Father"  (iJoiiu2:  1),  and 
whose  mediation  through  sacrifice  was  the 
great  reason  why  their  petitions  for  pardon 
and  life  should  be  heard.  And  now  all  who 
knovr  Jesus  Christ  as  the  "one  Mediator  be- 
twee:^.  God  and  men,"  who  "gave  himself" 
for  them  (iTim.  2:  5),  must  gratefully  acknowl- 
edge his  sacrifice  in  their  behalf,  in  order  to 
find  favor  with  his  Father.  Every  prayer 
should  have  upon  it  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  This  seems  to  be  a  just  conclusion 
from  the  statement  under  consideration,  and 
this  statement  is,  therefore,  of  much  doctrinal 
importance.  Ask,  and  ye  shall  receive, 
that  your  joy  may  be  full.  That  is,  ask 
in  my  name,  ask  continuously  in  mj'^  name 
(present  tense),  and  ye  shall  receive,  to  the 
end  that  your  joy  may  be  made  full.  "The 
fullness  of  joy,"  remarks  Westcott,  "is  the 
divine  end  of  Christ's  work,  according  to  the 
Father's  will."  Consider,  then,  the  goodness 
of  God  in  the  perfect  joy  which  is  provided 
for  his  people.  Consider,  also,  the  connection 
between  frequent  prayer  and  the  attainment 


328 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVI. 


25  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you  in  proverbs: 
but  the  time  cometh,  when  I  shall  no  more  speak  unto 
you  in  proverbs,  but  I  shall  shew  you  plainly  of  the 
Father. 

26  "  At  that  day  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name :  and 
I  say  not  unto  you,  that  I  will  pray  the  Father  for 
you: 


25  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you  in  i  dark 
sayings:  the  hour  cometh,  when  I  shall  no  more 
speak    unto   you   in   'dark  sayings,   but   shall   tell 

26  you  plainly  of  the  Father.  In  that  day  ye  shall 
ask  in  my  name:  and  I  say   not  unto  you,  that  I 


a  ver.  23. 1  Or,  parables^ 


of  that  joy.  And  consider,  finally,  that  this 
joy  comes  through  Christ,  and  by  a  constant 
recognition  of  his  perfect  work. 

25-33.  Summary  of  His  Words  to  the 
Eleven;  or,  Eeason  for  "Dark  Say- 
ings" ;  The  Eleven  Understand  His 
Meaning;  Last  "Warning  and  An- 
nouncement. 

25.  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto 
you  in  proverbs  (or,  parables).  These 
things,  must  comprehend  all  that  he  had 
said  to  them  since  leaving  the  room  where 
the  holy  Supper  was  instituted.  A  glance 
back  will  show  the  reader  that  a  considerable 
part  of  all  this  had  been  clothed  in  figurative 
speech.  On  the  word  translated  parables 
(Trapoi^iavs),  See  the  Note  to  10:  6.  The  Revised 
Version  renders  it  parable  in  the  text,  and 
proverb  in  the  margin  of  10:  6,  while  here  it 
is  rendered  by  the  American  Revision  dark 
sayings  in  the  text,  and  parables  in  the 
margin.  It  is  applied  to  language  which  is 
highly  figurative  or  allegorical,  and,  there- 
fore, obscure.  Sometimes  the  figurative  char- 
acter of  the  language  is  principally  referred 
to,  and  at  others,  the  obscurity  resulting  from 
that  character.  The  former  reference  seems 
to  prevail  in  10:  6,  and  the  latter  in  the 
passage  before  us.  It  is,  therefore,  diflBcult  to 
find  a  single  word  that  will  reproduce  in 
English  the  force  of  the  Greek  term  in  diflfer- 
ent  connections.  But  it  is  here  applied  to 
figurative  expressions  as  obscure,  and  is  fairly 
represented  by  dark  sayings.  But  the  time 
cometh.  But  is  omitted  by  Tisch.,  Treg., 
"West,  and  Hort.,  and  Anglo- Am.  Revisers, 
according  to  N  A  B  C*  D*  L  X  Y  n,  1,  33.  More- 
over, there  appears  to  be  no  sufl!icient  reason 
for  the  insertion  of  the  definite  article  before 
time  (lit.,  hour),  as  there  is  no  good  reason  for 
translating  hora  (upa),  time,  instead  of  hour. 
A  literal  translation  would  be,  an  hour 
cometh.  The  period  referred  to  began  with 
the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  on  the  Daj'  of 
Pentecost,  and  will  continue  until  the  return 
of  Christ  at  the  last  day.     When  I  shall  no 


more  speak  unto  you  in  proverbs  (or, 
dark  sayings).  Everything  may  be  good  in 
its  time,  but  dawn  should  be  followed  bj-  the 
clear  shining  of  tlie  sun.  Having  done  their 
work,  t^'pes  and  shadows  must  give  way  to 
realities.  Dark  sayings,  are  not  the  best  for 
all  periods  of  religious  life.  The  face  of  truth 
need  not  always  be  covered  by  a  veil.  But  I 
shall  show  you  plainly  of  the  Father. 
To  show,  means  in  this  place  to  declare 
(a-nayyiKi>  Lach.,  Tisch.,  Treg.,  "West.  &  Hort., 
after  X  A  B  C*  L,  etc.),  "  marking  the  origin, 
rather  than  the  destination,  of  the  message." 
—  Westcott.  Plainly — i.  e.,  clearly,  openly, 
without  concealment.  Observe  that  the 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  claimed  by  the 
Saviour  as  his  own  teaching.  Jesus  expected 
to  speak  unto  his  people  in  and  by  the  Spirit 
of  truth.  In  taking  from  the  things  of 
Christ,  the  Spirit  was  to  take  his  words,  his 
will,  and  make  them  known  to  the  church. 
Thus  Jesus  would  continue  to  be  the  Divine 
"Word,  or,  Revealer,  though  he  should  speak 
through  the  Spirit,  his  Advocate  with  men. 

26.  At  that  day.  Rather,  in  that  day, 
is  the  meaning  of  Christ's  language.  And 
that  day,  is  the  period  mentioned  above,  ver. 
25,  the  word  day,  in  this  verse  standing  for 
the  same  idea  as  the  word  hour,  in  that. 
Both  signify,  as  here  used,  a  long  period  of 
time,  a  Dispensation,  or  aeon.  Yet  these  two 
words  should  be  literally  translated,  since 
their  English  use  corresponds  with  their  New 
Testament  use,  and  since  much  would  be  lost 
by  substituting  for  them  the  utterly  indefinite, 
unlimited  word  time.  Ye  shall  (or,  loill) 
ask  in  my  name — i.e.,  oflTer  your  petitions 
{airri<Tfaee)  in  my  name.  For  the  expression, 
in  my  name,  see  Notes  on  14:  18,  14,  and  on 
verses  23,  24,  above.  That  I  will  pray  the 
Father  for  you.  Better,  will  ask  the  Father 
about  you;  for  the  word  rendered  pray 
(ipiarav),  mcans  to  ask,  either  for  information, 
instruction,  or  for  a  blessing,  privilege,  favor 
of  some  kind,  while  the  words  for  you,  do 
not  precisely  represent  the  Greek  (nepX  vfimv), 


Ch.  XVI.] 


JOHN. 


329 


27  "For  the  Father  himself  loveth  you,  because  ye 
have  loved  me,  and  'have  believed  that  I  came  out 
from  God. 

28  "I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am  come 
into  the  world:  again,  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  to  the 
Father. 


27  will  1  pray  the  Father  for  you  ;  for  the  Father  him- 
self  loveth   you,   because    ye   have   loved   uie,   and 

28  have  believed  that  1  came  forth  from  the  Father.  I 
came  out  from  the  Father,  and  am  come  into  the 
world:   again,  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  unto  the 


a  ch.  14:  21,  23 b  ob.  3:  13;  17  :  8  ;  ver.  30 c  oh.  13  :  3. 1  Gr.  make  request  of. 


which  means,  about  you,  or,  concerning  you. 
To  ask  abo^t  them  when  they  pray,  would  be 
to  inquire  after  the  Father's  will  in  respect  to 
them,  and  in  so  doing,  to  lay  their  case  before 
him.  Three  things  are  noticeable  in  this  say- 
ing of  Jesus:  (1)  It  betrays  no  thought  of 
diminished  interest  on  his  part  in  the  welfare 
of  his  followers.  See  the  reason  for  it  in  the 
sequel.  (2)  It  does  not  predict  a  closing  up 
of  his  personal  interposition  in  their  behalf. 
That  interposition  will  cease  only  so  far  as  it 
is  needless.  In  certain  cases  it  may  be  relied 
upon — (e.  flr.,  iJohn2: 2).  (3)  It  assumcs  the  Con- 
tinued virtue  of  his  influence  in  their  behalf, 
by  the  words,  ye  will  ask  in  my  name.  For 
prayer  in  the  name  of  Christ  is,  in  reality, 
prayer  endorsed  by  him,  and  it  will  be  heard 
as  if  it  were  offered  by  him. 

27.  For  the  Father  himself  loveth  you. 
And  he  will  surely  answer  the  petitions  of 
those  whom  he  loves.  The  Father  himself, 
is  the  Father,  as  personally  distinguishable 
from  the  Son.  And  the  love  here  spoken  of, 
is  like  that  which  springs  from  natural  rela- 
tionship ((^lAe'i) ;  it  is  a  spontaneous  aft'ection, 
going  out  to  those  who  are,  as  it  were,  his 

children    in    Christ.      (Rom.  8:   IS;    comp.   Kev.  S:   19.) 

Because  ye  have  loved  me.  The  perfect 
tense  represents  the  love  of  the  disciples  to 
Christ  as  an  affection  which  began  in  the  past 
and  had  continued  into  the  present.  And  the 
verb  is  the  same  as  that  used  in  the  previous 
verse  to  denote  the  Father's  affection  for 
them.  Only  here  in  the  Gospels  is  it  chosen 
to  characterize  the  affection  of  the  disciples 
for  Christ,  unless  Peter's  language  in  21 :  15- 
17,  be  counted  another  instance.  Probably 
its  selection  may  be  partly  owing  to  the  use 
of  the  same  verb  in  speaking  of  Grod;  for 
Jesus  evidently  desired  to  associate  his 
Father's  love  to  them  with  their  love  to  him- 
self, the  Son.  Moreover,  the  affection  which 
they  felt  for  him  was  not  purely  religious,  but 
to  some  extent  natural  and  personal.  Yet 
their  consciousness  of  it  would  do  much  to 
make  the  Father's  love  to  them  intelligible. 
That  I  came  out  from  God.     Better,  that  \ 


I  came  forth  from  the  Father.  This  reading 
is  adopted  by  Tisch.,  Treg.,  West.  &  Hort., 
Anglo-Am.  Kevisers,  after  N"  13  C*  D  L  X,  etc. 
From,  the  Father,  means  from  with  the  Fa- 
ther, or,  from,  a  position  by  the  Father's  side. 
It  would  not  have  been  enough  for  the  dis- 
ciples to  have  felt  a  warm  personal  attach- 
ment to  Jesus,  as  a  noble  and  sincere  man  ; 
they  must  also  recognize  his  relation  to  the 
Father  before  his  appearance  among  men, 
and  his  mission  from  the  Father,  as  the  prom- 
ised Messiah. 

28.  I  came  forth  from  the  Father. 
More  precisely,  I catne  out  from  the  Father; 
not  from  the  Father's  side  (i-apij,  but,  as  it 
were,  out  from  (ex)  the  inner  being,  the  very 
life  and  love  of  the  Father.  The  language  is 
exact,  and  strong  enough  to  be  appealed  to  in 
proof  of  the  essential  unity  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  or  at  least  of  the  Father  and  the 
Word.  But  it  does  not  suggest  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  generation  ;  for  the  coming  out 
from  the  inner  sphere  of  the  Father's  life,  is 
represented  as  an  act  of  Christ  (not  of  the 
Father),  performed  at  a  definite  moment  in 
the  past.  "This,  his  coming  forth  from  the 
Father,  is  to  be  understood,  not  of  his  eternal 
filiation ;  nor  of  his  coming  forth  in  a  way  of 
grace,  towards  his  own  people  in  the  council 
and  covenant  of  grace  and  peace  ;  nor  of  his 
constitution,  as  Mediator,  from  everlasting; 
but  of  his  coming  in  the  flesh,  in  the  fullness 
of  time  ;  which  supposes  that  he  was,  that  he 
existed  as  a  divine  person  before;  that  he  was 
with  the  Father  before;  that  he  came  forth 
from  him  with  his  knowledge,  mind,  and 
will,"  etc. — GUI.  And  am  come  into  the 
world.  Would  it  not  be  still  better  English 
to  translate:  and  have  coyne  into  the  world? 
This  language  does  not  refer  exclusively  to 
his  incarnation  in  the  womb  of  Mar}-,  and  so 
to  his  incorporation  into  the  world  of  man- 
kind ;  but  rather,  to  the  whole  process  by 
which  he  entered  into  human  life  and  society, 
to  be  a  teacher  of  the  divine  will,  and  to  give 
his  life  a  ransom  for  many.  It  refers  to  his 
manifestation  in  human  history.     (Comp.  1: 


330 


JOHN. 


[Cn.  XIV. 


29  His  disciples  said  unto  him,  Lo,  now  speakest  thou 
plainly,  and  speakest  no  proverb. 

30  Now  are  we  sure  that  «thou  knowest  all  things, 
and  needest  not  that  any  luan  should  ask  thee :  by  this 
'  we  believe  that  thou  earnest  forth  from  God. 


29  Father.     His  di.sciples  say,  Lo,  now  speakest  thou 

30  plainly,  and  speakest  no  idark  saying.  Now  know 
we  that  thou  knowest  all  things,  and  needest  not 
that  any  man  should  ask  thee :  by  this  we  believe 


a  ch.  21:  17 6  ver.  27  ;  cb.  17  :  8. 1  Or,  parable. 


9-11;  3:  19;  9:  39;  12:  46).     Again,  I  leave 

the  world.  The  original  vevh  (i.<j>iriiJ.i.),  signi- 
fies to  send  from,  to  dismiss,  to  relinquish,  to 
leave,  and  does  not,  therefore,  differ,  essen- 
tially, from  the  word  withdraw  {iinayia),  (ver. 
5,  Note).  The  suggestion  of  Westcott  (on 
4:  3),  that  "the  general  idea  which  it  conveys 
seems  to  be  that  of  leaving  anything  to  itself, 
to  its  own  wishes,  ways,  fate ;  of  withdrawing 
whatever  controlling  power  was  exercised 
before,'"  is  not  sustained  by  its  use  in  this 
passage.  For,  in  leaving  the  world  to  go 
unto  the  Father,  Jesus  did  not  desert  it,  did 
not  leave  it  to  itself;  he  continued  to  care  for 
it,  and  to  draw  it  unto  himself.  (Comp.  12: 
32).  And  go  to  the  Father.  "As  surely 
as  this  is  to  be  understood  of  his  exaltation  to 
the  heavenly  existence,  so  surely  is  the  'came 
out  from'  to  be  understood  of  his  leaving  an 
existence  with  God  in  the  heavenly  life."  — 
Weiss.  Meyer  speaks  of  this  verse  as  "a 
simple  and  grand  summary  of  his  entire  per- 
sonal life."  It  is  so  worded  as  to  aifirm  di- 
rectly, or  by  assumption,  his  pre-existence 
with  God,  his  incarnation  and  life  among 
men,  and  his  return  to  the  divine  state  with 
the  Father.  And  this  language  is  so  plain 
that  his  disciples  seemed  to  themselves  to  com 
prehend  it.  His  words  had  answered  the 
question  of  their  hearts,  and  convinced  them 
afresh  of  his  divine  knowledge.  Hence  their 
language  in  the  following  verses,  29,  30. 

29.  His  disciples  said  unto  him,  etc. 
According  to  the  best  editors  this  should  read : 
His  disciples  say.  Lo,  now  speakest  th«»u 
plainly,  and  speakest  no  proverb  (or, 
parable).  For  the  meaning  of  the  words 
plainly  and  parable,  see  Notes  on  ver.  25. 
The  interjection  Lo  (iSe),  which  appears  twice 
in  this  connection,  is  characteristic  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  being  found  in  it  a  greater 
number  of  times  than  in  all  the  other  books 
of  the  New  Testament.  Now  is  emphatic;  as 
if  the  Lord's  promise  of  clearer  light  in  the 
future  had  been  found  true  in  the  present. 
Of  course  they  had  no  thought  of  claiming 
that  what  they  now  perceived  was  all  the 
truth  which  he  had  promised  to  give  them 


through  the  ministry  of  the  Spirit,  but  the 
"  rays  and  beams  of  light  which  were  darted 
into  their  minds,"  awaken  surprise  and  joy. 
"In  responding  directly  to  the  thoughts 
which  profoundly  agitated  their  hearts,  Jesus 
gave  them  a  standard  by  which  thej'  could 
measure  the  truth  of  all  his  words,  and  the 
certainty  of  all  his  promises."  —  Godet. 

30.  Now  we  are  sure.  More  precisel3' : 
Now  we  know  (oifia/iej').  The  evidence  seems 
to  them  complete.  Not  a  doubt  remains. 
Belief  has  risen  to  certainty,  and  is  spoken  of 
as  knowledge.  But  how  stupendous  the  fact 
which  they  profess  to  know !  That  thou 
knowest  all  things.  Do  they  mean  this  in 
an  absolute  sense?  Or  is  it  a  case  of  bold  ex- 
aggeration, without  much  regard  to  the 
proper  use  of  words?  The  occasion  was  not 
likely  to  beget  extravagant  speech  in  that  di- 
rection. Moreover,  the  disciples  must  have 
been  impressed  by  the  mysterious  penetration 
of  their  Lord,  and  they  probably  felt  at  this 
moment  that  nothing,  however  secret,  was 
hidden  from  him;  nay,  that  his  knowledge 
was  divine.  And  needest  not  that  any 
man  should  ask  thee.  Their  special  ground 
for  confidence  in  his  supernatural  knowledge, 
was  the  answer  which  he  had  given  to  the 
unexpressed  desire  of  their  hearts  for  an  ex- 
planation of  his  woi'ds  (ver.  19).  To  this  in- 
stance of  his  discernment,  therefore,  thej' 
specially  refer,  as  a  proof  or  illustration  of 
their  general  statement.  By  (or,  in)  this  we 
believe  that  thou  earnest  forth  from  God 
— i.e.,  "Our  belief  tlitit  thou  camest  forth 
from  God,  is  grounded  in  the  knowledge 
which  thou  hast  manifested  of  the  secret  feel- 
ings of  our  hearts,"  or,  "we  believe  that  thou 
camest  forth  from  God  with  a  belief  that  has 
its  source  and  support  in  the  knowledge  of 
our  hearts  which  thou  hast  shown."  Not 
that  they  now  first  believed  this  truth,  but 
that  they  now  believed  it  with  fresh  assur- 
ance, in  the  light  of  his  heart-searching  dis- 
cernment. "For  their  present  faith  in  the 
divine  origin  of  Chri.st  they  confess  that  they 
have  found  a  new  and  special  ground  of  cer- 
tainty  in  that  which  they  have  just  men- 


Ch.  XVI.] 


JOHN. 


331 


31  Jesus  answered  them,  Do  ye  now  believe? 

32  "Behold,  the  hour  coiiieth,  yea,  is  u(jw  come,  that 
ye  shall  be  scattered,  'every  luau  to  his  owu,  and  shall 
leave  me  alone:  and  "yet  I  am  not  alone,  because  the 
Father  is  with  me. 


31  that  thou  earnest  forth  from  God.    .lesus  answered 

32  them,  L)o  ye  now  believe?  Behold,  the  hour  cometh, 
yea,  is  come,  that  ye  shall  be  .scattered,  every  man 
to  his  own,  and  shall  leave  me  alone:  and  yet  I 
am    not  alone,   because    the    Father    is    with    me. 


iMaU.  26:31;  Mark  U:  '27....icb.  20:  10....C  ch.  8:  29;  14:  10,  11. 


tionefl." — Weiss.  It  is  characteristic  of  this 
Gospel  to  treat  woids  as  elastic,  and  especially 
the  word  believe.  Tims  a  lower  and  a  liigher 
degree  of  confidence  is  expressed  by  the  same 
term,  and  any  fresh  sense  of  trust  is  spoken 
of,  as  if  the  feeling  were  now  experienced  for 
the  first  time.  Moreover,  though  the  dis- 
ciples merely  avow  their  belief  that  their 
Master  had  come  to  them  from  God,  we  may 
assume  that  they  also  accepted  the  correspond- 
ing statement,  "Again,  I  leave  the  world,  and 
go  to  the  Father."  (ver. 28.)  Yet  their  re- 
luctant lips  failed  to  utter  what  they  knew. 
And  it  is  not,  perhaps,  amiss  to  suppose  that 
Jesus  had  respect  to  that  reluctance  in  the  re- 
sponse which  follows.  Rejoicing  that  he 
had  brought  them  on  so  far  in  their  spiritual 
course,  he  yet  perceives  with  natural  sadness 
the  practical  weakness  of  their  faith. 

31.  Do  ye  now  believe?  Words  which 
imply  doubt  as  to  the  steadfastness  or  perma- 
nence of  their  faith,  but  not  as  to  its  reality. 
For  the  exact  bearing  of  these  words  must  be 
inferred  from  what  follows.  Rightly  under- 
stood, they  are  a  hearty  recognition  of  present 
belief  on  the  part  of  his  disciples,  and  at  the 
same  time  a  hint  that  more  should  be  said, 
that  there  is  another  aspect  of  the  case,  since 
to-morrow  may  not  be  with  them  as  to-day. 
Thus  the  question  is  a  natural  preface  to  the 
prediction  that  follows. 

32.  Behold,  the  hour  cometh,  yea,  is 
now  come.  More  exactly  :  Behold,  an  Jiour 
cometh,  and  has  come.  For  the  definite 
article,  which  is  not  in  the  original,  need  not 
be  inserted  before  the  word  hour,  and  the 
latest  editors  (Lach.,  Tisch.,  Treg.,  Anglo- 
Am.  Rev.,  West.  &  Hort,  after  X  A  B  C*  D*  L 
X  33),  omit  the  adverb  now.  And  has  come, 
is  added,  because  it  was  so  near!  The  very 
day  had  arrived.  Before  the  night  should 
pass,  their  weakness  would  appear.  Nay,  it 
is  possible,  though  not  probable,  that  the 
literal  hour  which  was  to  witness  their  disper- 
sion had  begun.  Westcott  remarks,  that 
"this  clause,  as  contrasted  with  'and  now  is' 
(4:  23),  presents  rather  the  fulfillment  of  con- 
dition than  the  beginning  of  a  period,"  but 


we  cannot  discover  any  solid  ground  for  his 
opinion.  That  ye  shall  be  scattered, 
every  man  to  his  own.  Yet  Jesus  himself 
secured  for  his  disciples  the  opportunity  of 
separating  and  retiring  to  their  homes  (see 
18:  8),  but  they  would  not  have  seized  it  as 
promptly  as  they  did,  if  they  had  possessed  a 
martyr  spirit.  His  course  was  marked  by 
condescension  to  the  weakness  of  their  faitii. 
Westcott  translates:  "that  ye  maybe  scat- 
tered," etc.,  because  the  conjunction  ren- 
dered "that"  {'iva),  introduces  a  final  clause — 
i.  e.,  a  clause  whicii  states  an  end  for  which 
something  is  done  or  occurs.  Hence  he  adds: 
"Even  this  was  part  of  the  divine  counsel." 
The  doctrine  is  true,  but  it  is  difficult  to  de- 
termine the  exact  force  of  this  conjunction  in 
many  passages  of  our  Gospel.  Certainly 
Jesus  intended  to  predict  the  scattering  of  his 
disciples  in  the  hour  referred  to,  but  we  are 
not  sure  that  he  intended  to  represent  the 
hour  as  coming,  and  as  already  come,  for  the 
purpose  of  their  being  scattered.  Every  one 
to  his  own — i.  e.,  to  his  own  possessions  and 
pursuits.  Thus  Peter  and  some  of  his  com- 
panions returned  to  their  employment  as  fish- 
ermen on  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  (21 :  3-)  And 
shall  leave  me  alone.  A  pathetic  word, 
surcharged  with  human  sweetness  and  sorrow, 
revealing,  on  the  one  hand,  how  precious  was 
their  presence  and  love  to  him,  and,  on  the 
other,  how  weak  their  love  would  prove  to  be 
in  the  hour  of  trial.  If  Westcott's  view  of 
the  introductory  conjunction,  as  meaning  "in 
order  that,"  be  correct,  this  clause  should  be 
translated,  "and  leave  me  alone,"  for  it  is  in 
the  same  construction  as  the  preceding  one, 
"may  be  scattered."  And  yet  I  am  not 
alone,  because  the  Father  is  Avith  me. 
Yet  is  supplied  by  the  translators,  but  it  rep- 
resents fairly  well  what  must  have  been  the 
meaning  of  Christ — a  meaning  that  may  have 
been  conveyed  by  uttering  the  word  and, 
pausing  for  a  moment,  and  then  pronouncing, 
with  suitable  intonation,  the  words  that  fol- 
low. Thus:  and — I  am  not  alone,  because 
the  Father  is  with  me.  Such  brevilo- 
quence  is  often  the  most  effective  speech.   The 


332 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVL 


33  These  things  I  have  spokeu  unto  you,  that  <■  in  me 
ye  might  have  peace.  '  In  the  world  ye  shall  have 
tribulation:  =but  be  of  good  cheer;  "^  I  have  overcome 
the  world. 


33  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  that  in  me 
ye  may-  have  peace.  In  the  world  ye  have  tribu- 
lation :  but  be  of  good  cheer  ;  1  have  overcome  the 
world. 


o  Isa.  9  :  6;  cU.  U:  27;  Kom.  5  :  1 ;  Eph.  2  :  14  :  Col.  1 :  20 5  ch.  15:  19,  20,  21;  2  Tim.  3:  12 c  ch.  14  :  1 d  Eom.  8  :  37  ;  1  John  4: 

4;  5:4. 


look,  the  pause,  the  tone,  are  more  impressive 
than  words.  So  now  the  satisfaction  of  Jesus 
is  too  deep  for  any  but  the  simplest  expres- 
sion. The  presence  of  the  Father  is  a  source 
of  joy  too  sacred  and  precious  for  description 
in  the  language  of  men.  Alone — and  not 
alone !  Deserted  by  men — supported  by  God ! 
Meyer  speaks  of  the  feeling  here  expressed  as 
"the  calm,  clear  consciousness  of  the  Father's 
protection,  raised  above  all  human  desertion." 
Never,  perhaps,  was  there  a  person  on  earth 
who  felt  so  keenly  the  loss  of  human  sym- 
pathy; never,  surely,  was  there  one  who 
prized  so  highly  the  continuance  of  divine 
fellowship.  Yet,  for  a  moment,  he  seemed  to 
be  left  without  the  latter.  (Matt.  27: 46.)  Paul 
was  permitted  to  follow,  at  a  distance,  no 
doubt,  in  the  footsteps  of  his  Lord.  "At  my 
fir.«t  defence  no  one  took  my  part,  but  all  for- 
sook me:  may  it  not  be  laid  to  their  account! 
But  the  Lord  stood  by  me  and  strengthened 
me."  (2Tim.  4:  16,  Rev.  ver.)  But  neither  had  the 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles  such  claims  on  the 
fidelity  of  his  companions  as  Jesus  had  on  the 
love  of  his  disciples,  nor  did  he  ever  have 
such  perfect  intercourse  with  the  Lord,  as 
Jesus  now  had  with  his  Father. 

33.  These  things,  etc.  Namely,  all  that 
he  had  said  to  the  Eleven  since  Judas,  the 
betrayer,  had  left  the  upper  room.  One  gen- 
eral purpose  had  been  in  the  mind  of  Christ 
in  all  that  he  had  spoken — that  in  me  ye 
might  have  peace.  Better,  may  have  peace. 
Compare  the  comments  on  14:  27;  15:  11;  16: 
1,  4.  True  peace,  re.st  of  soul,  has  its  source 
in  Christ;  and  those  who  are  in  him,  as  the 
living  branches  are  in  the  vine,  will  have  this 
true  peace.  Out  of  him,  men  are  tormented 
with  discord  and  strife  and  unrest  of  soul ;  in 
him  they  have  love,  hope,  and  ]oy.  In  the 
world  ye  shall  have  tribulation.  Notice, 
first,  that  the  text  approved  bj'  the  best 
editors  (Tisch.,  Treg.,  West.  &  Hort,  Anglo- 
Am.  Revisers),  and  supported  by  the  principal 
early  MSS.  (x  A  B  C  L  X  Y  T  ah),  requires 
the  translation  :  In  the  world  ye  have  tribu- 
lation—  showing  that  the  hostility  of  the 
world  had  already  begun  to  assail  them,  or, 


better,  perhaps,  that  in  their  relations  with 
the  world,  tribulation  would  be  their  perma- 
nent lot.  They  were  to  meet  with  contradic- 
tion, reproach,  persecution,  .so  that  an  apostle 
would  say,  nearly  forty  years  later,  "Yea, 
and  all  that  will  live  godly  in  Christ  Jesus, 
shall  suffer  persecution."  (2 Tim. 3:12.)  But 
persecution  and  spiritual  peace  are  perfectly 
consistent.  Of  course,  in  the  world,  does 
not  mean  in  harmony  with  the  world,  but  the 
world  in  which  they  live  is  regarded  as  the 
source  in  which  their  tribulation  takes  its 
rise.  But  be  of  good  cheer.  "  Take  heart, 
be  encouraged."  I  have  overcome  the 
world.  The  pronoun  I  is  emphatic.  "He 
does  not  say,  '  Be  of  good  cheer,  you  have 
overcome  the  world'  ;  but  this  is  your  conso- 
lation, that  I,  I  have  overcome  the  world; 
my  victory  is  your  salvation." — Luther. 
But,  in  what  did  the  victory  of  Jesus  consist? 
In  what  way  had  he  overcome  the  world? 
Weiss  replies,  that  "he  neither  has  suffered, 
nor  does  suffer  himself  to  be  led  Into  sin  by 
the  world,  nor  to  be  disturbed  in  his  peace." 
Meyer  holds  that  the  perfect,  have  over- 
come, "states  the  victory  immediately  im- 
pending, which  is  to  be  gained  through  his 
glorification,  by  means  of  death,  as  already 
completed.  (Comp.  12:  31;  13:  31)."  Itseems 
to  me  that  the  perfect  is  best  explained  by 
supposing  a  reference  to  the  victory  which 
Christ  had  been  gaining,  and  was  now  gain- 
ing, and  was  certain  of  making  perfect  in  the 
garden  and  on  the  cross;  a  victory  which 
consisted  of  an  inward  triumph  over  tempta- 
tion, and  a  giving  of  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many.  It  was  subjective  and  objective  at  the 
same  time.  It  began  as  early  as  the  day 
when  he  was  led  bj'  the  Spirit  into  the  wilder- 
ness, to  be  tempted  by  the  devil,  and  was 
completed  on  the  cross,  when  he  cried,  "It  Is 
finished,"  and  gave  up  the  ghost,  or,  at  the 
latest,  when  he  rose  from  the  dead,  and  took 
his  place  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  From 
first  to  last  he  was  victorious.  At  every 
point,  even  the  darkest,  he  conquered.  And, 
through  him,  his  followers  will  overcome  as 
well. 


Ch.  XVII.] 


JOHN. 


333 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


THESE  words  spake  .Tesus,  and  lifted  up  his  eyes 
to  heaveu,  and  said,  Fatlier,  « the  hour  is  come; 
glorify  tliy  Son,  that  thy  Son  also  may  glorify  thee: 


1      These  things  spake  Jesus ;  and  lifting  up  his  eyes 
to  heaven,  he  said,  Father,  the  hour  is  come  ;  glori- 


ach.  12:  23;  13:  32. 


Ch.  17.  The  prayer  which  the  Evangelist 
now  records,  was  offered  in  the  presence  and 
hearing  of  the  disciples  with  whom  Jesus  had 
been  conversing;  and  there  is  no  sufficient 
reason  for  calling  in  question  the  substantial 
accuracy  of  the  Evangelist's  record.  A  more 
suitable  or  sublime  ending  of  his  personal 
work  for  the  Eleven,  by  way  of  teaching  and 
encouragement,  cannot  be  imagined.  Such 
an  ending  was  not  likely  to  be  forgotten  by  the 
beloved  disciple.  For  his  spirit  was  one  that 
would  be  deepl}'  impressed  by  it;  that  would 
cherish  with  affectionate  interest  through  all 
his  ministry  the  memory  of  it;  and  that, 
assisted  by  the  Spirit  of  truth,  would  put  it 
on  record,  with  holy  reverence,  for  the  people 
of  God.  "It  is  impossible,"  says  Alford,  "to 
regard  the  following  prayer  otherwise  than 
as  the  very  words  of  our  Lord  himself,  faith- 
fully rendered  by  the  beloved  apostle,  in  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Greek  form 
of  them  only  can  be  regarded  as  bearing  evi- 
dence of  the  style  and  manner  of  John." 

This  prayer  may  be  fitly  called  the  Lord's 
Prayer  — (1)  for  himself  (i-s),  (2)  for  the 
Eleven  (s-is),  and  fS)  for  all  believers,  to  the 
end  of  time  (20-26).  "But,"  according  to 
Godet,  "when  Jesus  prays  for  himself,  it  is 
not  merely  his  own  person  which  he  has  in 
view,  it  is  the  work  of  God  (ver.  1  and  2) ;  when 
he  prays  for  his  apostles,  it  is  for  the  organs 
and  continuers  of  the  same  work;  and  when 
he  commends  to  God,  believers,  present  and 
future,  it  is  as  objects  of  this  work,  and  be- 
cause these  souls  are  the  theatre  wherein  the 
glory  of  his  Father  ought  to  shine." 

As  to  the  place  where  the  little  group,  of 
which  Jesus  was  the  centre,  was  now  stand- 
ing— whether  it  was  a  court  of  the  temple,  or 
a  more  secluded  spot  on  the  western  slope  of 
the  Kidron  vallej' — we  are  in  doubt.  The 
words  of  14  :  31  suggest  that  they  had  left  the 
upper  room ;  and  the  words  of  18:  1  suggest 
that  they  had  not  passed  over  the  Kidron ; 
but  they  do  not,  separately,  or  together,  fur- 
nish any  clue  to  the  precise  locality.  Per- 
haps they  favor  the  view  that  he  was  still  in 


the  city,  and  if  so,  probably  in  the  precincts 
of  the  temple. 

1-8.  Jesus  Prays  for  His  Approach- 
ing Glorification. 

1.  These  words  spake  Jesus.  By  these 
words  (or,  these  things,  as  the  Greek  word  is 
usually  rendered),  the  Evangelist  may  mean 
all  that  had  been  said  by  the  Lord  during  the 
evening,  or,  possibly,  the  last  sentences  uttered 
by  him.  (16:32,33.)  The  former  is  a  more 
probable  view  than  the  latter.  And  lifted 
up  his  eyes  to  heaven,  and  said.  Better, 
and  lifting  up  his  eyes  to  heaven,  he  said;  for 
this  more  exact  reproduction  of  the  Greek 
idiom  (since  it  translates  the  participle  by  a 
participle),  is  even  better  English  than  the 
Common  Version.  Lifting  up  the  eyes  to 
heaven,  is  a  natural  act  in  prayer,  especially 
when  filial  confidence  is  strong;  for  God  is 
conceived  of  as  dwelling  in  heaven,  and  the 
eyes  of  a  trustful  Son  spontaneously  turn 
towards  the  Father,  who  is  addressed.  Fa- 
ther, the  hour  is  come.  Has  come,  would 
be  a  still  more  exact  representation  of  the 
original  word.  By  the  hour,  is  meant  the 
time  when  the  Son  was  to  be  glorified.  This 
is  evident  from  the  request  that  follows.  It 
was  a  time  fixed  in  the  eternal  purpose  of 
God,  and  was,  therefore,  called  by  Jesus, 
simply  and  sublimely,  the  hour.  Glorify 
thy  Son.  That  is,  by  receiving  him  into  the 
heavenly  glory.  (Comp.  7:  39  ;  12  :  16).  This 
glory  was  to  be  reached  through  suffering,  by 
way  of  the  cross;  but  the  eye  of  Christ  seems 
to  be  directed,  for  the  moment,  to  the  goal 
itself,  rather  than  to  the  way  that  must  be 
trodden  in  coming  to  it.  The  pronoun  thy, 
maj'  be  considered  as  in  itself  a  plea  for  what 
is  asked.  "  Thy  Son  it  is  who?n  thou  art  re- 
quested to  exalt  into  glory;"  or  "Glorify  me, 
for  I  am  thy  Son."  That  thy  Son  also 
may  glorify  thee.  Omit  thy  (with  Tisch., 
Treg.,  West.  &  Hort,  Anglo- Am.  lievisers, 
after  X  B  C*,  etc.),  and  also  (with  Tisch., 
Treg.,  West.  &  Hort.,  Anglo-Am.  Revisers, 
after  X  A  B  C*  D,  etc.),  leaving  the  clause, 
that    the    Son    may    glorify    thee.      Which 


334 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVII. 


2  "As  thou  hast  given  him  power  over  all  flesh, 
that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  *as  thou 
hast  given  him. 

a  And  'this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know 
thee  <i  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ, « whom  thou 
hast  sent. 


2  fy  thy  Son,  that  the  Son  may  glorify  thee:  even  as 
thou  gavest  him  authority  over  all  tlesh,  that  what- 
soever thou  hast  given  him,  to  them  he  should  give 

3  eternal  life.  And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they 
should     know  thee   the  only   true    God,   and    him 


7-  14  •  Matt.  11:  -27;  28:  18;  ch.  3:  35;  5 :  27  ;  1  Cor.  15:  25.  27;  Phil.  2  :  10 ;  Heb.  2:8 5  cb.  6    37;  ver.  6:  9.  24. 

Jer.  9:  24.... d  1  Cor.  8:  4;  1  TUess.  1:9 e  oh.  3  :  34;  5:  36,  37  ;  6:  29,57;  7  ;  29  ;  10:  36;  11 :  42. 


means,  "that  the  Son  may  reveal,  with 
greater  clearness  than  heretofore,  thy  perfec- 
tion or  glory."'  More  than  this  cannot  be 
intended;  for  Christ  had  been  revealing  the 
Father  during  all  his  earthly  ministrv.  Ob- 
serve that  Jesus  desires  his  own  glorification 
in  order  that  he  may  make  manifest  his 
Father's  glory.  Confident  of  his  Father's 
love  to  him,  he  is  conscious  of  supreme  love 
to  the  Father. 

2.  As  thou  hast  given  him  power,  etc. 
The  Revised  Version  is  better:  Even  as  thou 
gavest  him  authority  over  all  flesh,  that  what- 
soever thou  hfist  given  him,  to  them  he  should 
give  eternal  life.  Even  as,  marks  the  corre- 
spondence between  what  is  now  asked  (ver.  i), 
and  what  the  Father  had  given  the  Son  when 
he  sent  him  into  the  world.  (Comp.  13:  3). 
The  authority  which  the  Father  then  gave 
the  Son,  and  the  end  for  which  it  was  given, 
harmonize  with  the  glorification  of  the  Son 
at  this  time.  For  only  by  that  glorification 
can  the  end  proposed  be  accomplished.  Ob- 
serve (1)  that  by  all  flesh,  is  meant  all  man- 
kind, in  their  natural  state,  as  coming  short 
of  the  glory  of  God.  (Rom. 3:23.)  And  au- 
thority over  all  mankind  would  scarcely 
have  been  given  to  the  Son,  unless  many  out- 
side the  Jewish  nation  were  to  receive  the  gift 
of  eternal  life  from  him.  But  while  in  the 
flesh,  his  work  was  chiefly  with  the  Jews. 
That  he  might  approach  all  men  with  the 
same  blessing,  it  was  necessary  that  he  should 
be  glorified.  (2)  That  the  word  whatsoever, 
or.  all  which  (nav  a),  represents  the  whole 
body  of  believers,  given  to  Christ  by  the 
Father,  as  a  unity,  while  the  clause,  to  them 
he  should  give  eternal  life,  represents  the 
spiritual  life  of  these  believers  as  Christ's  gift 
to  them  as  individuals.  He  expects  to  save 
those,  and  those  only,  whom  the  Father  has 
given  him.  (3)  That  by  giving  to  them  eter- 
nal life  he  will  glorify  the  Father,  who  has 
given  them  to  him.  Godet  points  out  the 
connection  of  thought  as  follows:  "The 
second  proposition  of  verse  2,  that  he  should 


give  eternal  life,  is  parallel  to  the  second  of 
verse  1 ;  that  he  may  glorify  thee.  Tlie  true 
means  of  glorifj'ing  God,  is  that  of  communi- 
cating eternal  life.  For  life  eternal  consists  in 
knowing  God.  (ver.  3.)  By  presenting  his  re- 
quest in  this  new  form,  Jesus  urges  it  in  a  man- 
ner the  most  pressing:  'Glorify  me,  in  order 
that,  in  accordance  with  the  trust  committed 
to  me,  I  may  be  able  to  give  eternal  life  to  all 
that  believe.'  That  is  to  say  :  '  Grant  me  the 
ascension,  that  I  may  effect  the  Pentecost.'  " 
It  is  worth  while  to  notice  also  the  expansion 
of  the  second  clause  of  this  verse  by  Gill. 
"Eternal  life  is  a  gift,  and  not  owing  to  the 
merits  of  men.  .  .  (It)  is  Christ's  gift;  .  .  it  is 
put  into  his  hands,  and  he  came  into  this 
world  that  his  people  might  have  it;  he  has 
procured  it,  and  has  removed  what  lay  in  the 
way  of  their  enjoyment  of  it;  he  has  a  right 
to  bestow  it,  and  their  right  unto  it  conies  by 
him,  through  his  blood  and  righteousness; 
the  persons  on  whom  he  confers  this  gift  are 
not  all  men,  but  such  as  the  Father,  in  the 
everlasting  covenant,  has  given  to  him  as  his 
people  and  portion.  .  .  .  his  jewels  and  his 
treasure,  to  be  saved  and  enjoj'ed  \>y  him  ;  .  . 
to  these,  and  evcrj^  one  of  them,  Christ  gives 
this  great  blessing;  nor  shall  anj'  of  them 
come  short  of  it ;  and  'tis  for  the  sake  of  this, 
that  all  creatures  and  things,  all  power  in 
heaven  and  earth,  are  given  to  him." 

3.  And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they 
might  know,  etc.  We  regard  this  as  a  defini- 
tion of  the  eternal  life  referred  to  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse  as  Christ's  gift.  It  is  a  state- 
ment, at  once  brief  and  profound,  of  that  in 
which  eternal  life  consists.  But  the  know- 
ing spoken  of  is  more  than  intellectual,  it  is 
spiritual ;  comprehending  in  itself  love,  ap- 
preciation, communion.  "Every  one  that 
loveth  is  begotten  of  God,  and  knoweth  God. 
He  that  loveth  not,  knoweth  not  God,  for 
God  is  love."  (i John, 4:  7, 8.)  Godet  says: 
"The  Scripture  always  (?)  emploj's  the  word 
I  knou}  in  a  sense  most  profound.  When 
I  speaking    of    the    connection    between     two 


Ch.  XVII.] 


JOHN. 


335 


persons,  this  word  denotes  the  perfect  view 
whi(!h  each  one  hiis  of  the  moral  being  of  the 
other,  their  close  spiritual  contact  in  the  same 
luminous  medium."  Weiss  remarks:  "The 
knowledge  here  meant  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  a  purely  theoretical  function  of  the  under- 
standing, but,  as  ever  with  John,  a  spiritual 
intuition,  a  sinking  one's  self  into  the  supreme 
object  of  knowledge,  by  means  of  which  that 
object  is  inwardly  appropriated  and  made  the 
central  and  controlling  principle  of  the  whole 
spiritual  life."  It  may  be  noticed,  also,  that 
the  verb  to  know  conveys  a  slightly  difter- 
ent  meaning  from  that  which  would  be  con- 
ve^'Cd  by  the  noun  knowledge.  For  the 
one  represents  eternal  life  as  the  highest  form 
of  present  and  continuous  spiritual  action, 
while  the  other  represents  it  as  a  spiritual 
possession.  Moreover,  it  is  characteristic  of 
this  Gospel  to  make  use  of  verbs  rather  than 
of  nouns — e.  g.,  to  speak  of  believing  rather 
than  of  faith  or  belief,  the  verb  occurring 
ninety-eight  times  and  the  corresponding 
noun  not  once;  of  knowing  rather  than  of 
knowledge,  the  verb  occurring  fifty-five  times 
and  the  corresponding  noun  not  once  ;  and  of 
loving  rather  than  of  love,  the  verb  (ayan-ai/) 
occurring  thirty-six  times,  and  the  corre- 
sponding noun  {ayinn)  Only  seven  times.  Such 
a  choice  of  words  flows  naturally  from  the 
conception  of  true  religion  as  a  life — a  con- 
ception which  pervades  the  Fourth  Gospel 
and  the  First  Epistle  of  John. 

With  this  view  of  the  first  part  of  the  verse, 
the  translation  might  know,  is  incongruous. 
Hence,  instead  of  might  know,  the  Revised 
Version  reads,  should  knoiv,  Westcott  and 
McCiellan  fnay  knoiv,  the  Bible  Union  and 
Davidson,  knoiv,  Alford  and  Noyes,  to  know. 
(Tisch.  and  Treg.  give  the  Greek  verb  in  the 
indicative  present,  after  A  D  G  L  Y  A  A,  33. 
West.  &  Hort,  with  Anglo-Am.  Revisers,  give 
it  in  the  subjunctive  present,  after  X  B  C  X  n, 
etc).  If  the  conjunction  that,  ('iva)  here  re- 
tains its  ordinary  sense,  in  order  that,  we 
must  adopt  the  version  of  Westcott  and  Mc- 
Ciellan, may  know.  But  the  language  is 
then  dark.  For  to  say,  "This  is  the  eternal 
life,"  namely,  "in  order  that  they  may 
know,"  etc.,  is,  by  no  means,  a  natural  or 
clear  expression  of  thought.  It  begins  to  state 
what  eternal  life  is,  but  ends  by  stating  what 
it  is  in  order  to,  or  what  is  the  end  contem- 


plated by  it.     We  are  satisfied  that  the  con- 
junction, as  here  usihI,  is  ernployed  to  intro- 
duce a  definite  clause,  explanatory  of  this  ; 
and  if  so,  the  best  English  translation  is  by 
the   infinitive,    to    know.      Thee,  the    only 
true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  thou 
hast  sent.     This  rendering  is  less  exact  than 
that  of  the  Revised  Version:      Thee,  the  only 
true  God,  and  hbn  whom  thou  didst  send,  even 
Jesus  Christ.     Here  the  Father  is  described 
as    the   only  true    God— i.  e.,  as  the  only 
being  in  whoni  the  idea  of  God  is  perfectly 
realized.     This  language  has  been  considered 
by  many  incompatible  with  the  proper  deity 
of  Christ;   and,  if  taken  altogether  by  itself, 
it    has   an   appearance  of   being  so.     But   it 
should  be  observed,  (1)  that  the  association  of 
himself  with   the  Father,  as  one  of  the  two 
personal  objects  of  that  knowledge  which  is 
life  eternal,  does  not  accord  with  any  view 
which  denies  his  own  deity.     It  seems  well 
nigh  incredible  that  Jesus  should  have  said 
that  it  is  eternal  life  to  know  the  only  true 
God,  and  an  inferior  being,  sent  by  him  as  a 
messenger  to  men.     If  it  be  said,  that  know- 
ing the  messenger  sent,  is  the  only  means  of 
knowing  the  true  God  who  sent  him,  it  is  im- 
possible to  see  how  the  messenger  could  be  an 
adequate  revealer  of  One   whose  nature  he 
did  not  share.     "He  that  hath  seen  me  hath 
seen  the  Father."     Jesus  was  then  a  perfect 
manifestation  of  the  Father.     "Glorify  thy 
Son,  that  thy  Son  also  may  glorify  thee."     In 
such  language  there  is  the  plain  assumption 
of  some  real,  though    mysterious,  alliance  of 
the  Son  with  the  Father,  which  seems  incon- 
sistent with  the  exclusive  deity  of  the  Father, 
in    contrast  with  the  Son.     Indeed,  Cyril   of 
Alexandria  remarks,  that  "the  knowledge  of 
God  as  the  Father  really  involves  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  Son  as  God"  (from  Westcott.)   (2) 
That  Jesus  intended  to  represent  the  deitj'  of 
the  Father  as  exclusive  of  his  own  deitj%  is  an 
idea  foreign   to  the  context,  and,  therefore, 
improbable.     Liicke,  certainly   an   impartial 
scholar,  says:    "The  passage  is  neither  trini- 
tarian  nor  anti-trinitarian,  because  its  stand- 
point is  not  that  of  the  Logos  (i:  I'^q.),  but  of 
the  historical   appearance  and  revelation  of 
Christ.     It  is  the  combined  anti-polytheistic 
and    anti-Judaistic    expression   of    Christian 
truth."     Westcott  has  in  mind  the  same  view 
when  he  writes  :    "The  primary  reference  is, 


336 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVII. 


no  doubt,  to  the  respective  trials  of  Gentile 
and  Jew;  but  these  include  in  themselves  the 
typical  trials  of  all  ages."  On  the  other 
hand,  Weiss  holds  that  "Jesus  designates  the 
Father  (see  ver.  1)  as  the  One  who  alone  is 
truly  God,  because  God  is  only  truth,  if  he  is 
known  as  the  Father  of  Christ."  So,  also, 
Lange:  "It  is  the  God  of  revelation  in 
Christ,  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  Eph.  1:3;  not  in  antithesis  to 
the  Old  Testament  idea  of  God,  or  to  the  idea 
of  Christ,  but  in  antithesis  to  all  false  and 
obscure  belief  in  God;  hence  God,  as  he  re- 
veals himself  in  Christ,  distinct  as  to  his  divine 
consciousness,  and  distinguished  from  Christ." 
(3)  If  it  were  distinctly  taught  in  this  passage 
that  the  being  and  position  of  the  Father 
alone  fulfill,  in  every  respect,  the  complete 
idea  of  God,  it  would  not  follow  that  the 
Eternal  Word  or  the  Divine  Spirit  must  be 
separate  in  essence  from  the  Father,  or  infe- 
rior to  him  in  any  natural  or  moral  perfection. 
The  ditference  might  be  one  of  position, 
rather  than  one  of  nature ;  it  might  be  owing 
to  the  humiliation  of  the  Son,  and  to  the  mis- 
sion of  the  Spirit,  rather  than  to  derivation 
of  being  or  inferiority  of  knowledge.  And 
there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  fact  that  both 
Jesus  and  his  apostles  do  assign  a  certain  pre- 
cedence in  order  and  rank  to  the  Father, 
while  at  the  same  time  they  teach  the  true 
divinity  of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  together  with 
the  unity  of  the  Godhead. 

But  another  question  presents  itself.  Is  it 
reasonable  to  believe  that  the  Saviour  actually 
called  himself,  in  this  connection,  Jesus 
Christ?  Must  we  not  rather  suppose  that 
the  beloved  disciple  has,  by  mistake,  put  these 
words  into  his  mouth  ?  Or,  at  least,  has  added 
them  by  way  of  explanation  as  the  personal 
and  oificial  names  of  the  Sent  of  God  ?  Many 
interpreters,  including  Westcott,  feel  con- 
strained to  adopt  this  view.  The  Note  of  Mr. 
Westcott  deserves  to  be  copied  without  abbre- 
viation: "The  complex  name,  'Jesus  Christ,' 
appears  to  answer  exactly  to  the  correspond- 
ing clause,  'the  only  true  God.'  These  two 
clauses  are  thus,  most  naturally,  taken  to  de- 
fine the  persons  indicated  before,  (viz.),  'Thee' 
and  'Him  whom  thou  didst  send.'  If  we 
accept  this  construction,  we  hav.e  then  to  con- 
sider whether  the  definitions  are  to  be  treated 
as  literally  parts  of  the  prayer,  or  as  words 


used  by  the  Evangelist  in  hjs  record  of  the 
prayer,  as  best  fitted,  in  this  connection,  to 
convey  the  full  meaning  of  the  original  lan- 
guage. In  favor  of  the  latter  view  it  may  be 
urged  (1)  that  the  use  of  the  name  'Jesus 
Christ'  by  the  Lord  himself,  at  this  time,  is, 
in  the  highest  degree,  unlikely,  while  the 
compound  title,  expressing,  as  it  did  at  a 
later  time,  the  combination  of  the  ideas  of 
humanity  and  of  divine  oiBce,  may  reason- 
ably be  supposed  to  give  the  exact  sense  of 
the  Lord's  thought;  (2)  that  the  phrase,  'the 
only  true  God,'  recalls  the  phrase  of  St.  John, 
'the  true  God'  (uohns-.  20),  and  is  not  like  any 
other  phrase  used  by  the  Lord;  (3)  that  the 
clauses,  while  perfectly  natural  as  explana- 
tions, are  most  strange  if  they  are  taken  as 
substantial  parts  of  the  prayer.  It  is  no  dero- 
gation from  the  truthfulness  of  the  record 
that  St.  John  has  thus  given  parenthetically 
and  in  conventional  language  (so  to  speak) 
the  substance  of  what  the  Lord  said  probablj^ 
at  greater  length." 

Every  one  will  see  the  force  of  these  consid- 
erations. But  the^'  seem  to  me  to  over-state 
the  objections  to  the  assumption  that  John's 
record  is  faithful  to  the  exj^ression,  as  well  as 
to  the  thought  of  Jesus.  It  may  be  unlikely-, 
but  is  it  "in  the  highest  degree  unlikely," 
that  the  compound  name  "Jesus  Christ"  was 
used  by  the  Lord  himself?  Do  we  know  all 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  all  the  motives, 
all  the  spiritual  conditions  of  this  prayer,  well 
enough  to  affirm  this?  Jesus  was  oflTering  a 
praj'er  in  the  presence  of  his  disciples.  It  was 
proper  for  them  to  hear  and  remember  it. 
For  it  was  adapted  to  give  them  a  just  con- 
ception of  his  relations  to  the  Father,  as  well 
as  to  them.  Moreover,  he  was  referring  to 
himself  in  the  third  person,  as  being,  along 
with  the  Father,  the  object  of  that  knowledge 
which  is  eternal  life.  Still  further,  the  com- 
pound name  applied  to  himself  was  signifi- 
cant, in  both  its  parts,  of  that  for  which  he 
was  sent  into  the  world.  Jesus — Saviour,  and 
Christ — Anointed  One,  pointing  to  his  me- 
diatorial work  (comp.  1  Tim.  2:  5.  6),  which 
might  naturally  be  referred  to  in  this  connec- 
tion. In  this  solemn  hour,  it  is  by  no  means 
clear  that  he  might  not  have  applied  to  him- 
relf,  once  for  all,  the  great  compound  name, 
which  the  apostles  were  to  use  so  often.  Nor 
is  it  altogether  probable  that  the  Holy  Spirit 


Ch.  XVII.] 


JOHN. 


337 


401  have  glorified  thee  on  the  earth:  *  I  have  fin- 
ished the  work  "which  thou  gavust  me  to  do. 

5  And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine 
own  self  with  the  glory  ''  which  I  had  with  thee  before 
the  world  was. 


4  whom  thou  didst  send,  even  Jesus  Christ.  I  klori- 
fied    thee  on   the  earth,   having  accomplished   the 

5  work  which  thou  hast  given  mc  to  do.  And  now, 
O  l''ather,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self 
with  the  glory  which  1  had  with  thee  before  the 


.d  cb.  1 :  1,  2 ;  10 :  30 ;  li :  9 ;  Pbll.  2:6;  Col.  1 :  15,  17 ; 


would  have  left  the  Evangelist  to  inject  his 
own  explanations  into  this  extraordinary  ap- 
peal of  Jesus  to  his  Father.  It  may  also  be 
mentioned,  that  only  a  few  hours  later,  Jesus 
publicly  declared  himself  the  Messiah.  We 
adhere,  therefore,  to  the  view  that  this  is  the 
language  of  Christ  himself. 

4.  I  have  g:lorified  thee  on  the   earth. 
Better:  /  glorified  thee,  etc.  ;  for  Jesus  places 
himself,  in  thought,  at  the  end  of  his  earthly 
ministry-,  including  his  voluntary   sacrificial 
death,  and  looks  back  upon  it  as  a  completed 
service.     In  and  by  it  he  has  already  revealed 
the  character  of  the  Father,  thus  glorifying 
him  in  the  only  possible   way.     Looking  at 
his  worli  on  earth  as  virtually  accomplished, 
he  perceives  in  it  no  defect,  as  the  next  clause 
expressly   affirms.      I    have    finished     the 
work,  etc.     Here,  too,  the  form  of  the   Ke- 
vised   Version   is   more   exact,    viz. :    having 
accoinjill'-ihed  the  work  lohich  thou  hast  given 
me    to    do.      The    participle    having    accom- 
piiihed,   etc.     (Substituting  the  aorist  parti- 
ciple for  the  personal  verb,  with  Lach.,  Tisch., 
Treg.,  West.    &   Hort,  Anglo-Am.   Revisers, 
after  N  A  B  C  L  n,  1,  33,  etc.),  states  the  way 
in  wliich  he  had  glorified  the  Father — i.  e.,  by 
completing     the    work    committed    to    him. 
Having   accomplished    expresses    more    pre- 
cisely the  force  of  the  Greek  term  than  having 
finished,    for   the  term   (TcAetuJo-as)   means    to 
make  perfect,   complete,  to  bring  to  a  true 
end,  rather  than  simply  to  finish,  to  bring  to 
an  end.     (Comp.  4:34;  5:36;  17:23;  1  John 
2:  5;    4:  12,  17;    Heb.  2:    10;    5:  9;    7:    28.) 
Weiss  remarks:   ''''Having  accomplished;  be- 
cause Jesus  stands  at  the  goal  of  his  earthly 
course  ;  he  has  accomplished  his  life-work,  in 
so  far  as  it  could  be  accomplished  in  the  call- 
ing of  his  earthly  life,-  but  this  does  not  pre- 
vent its  being  still  further  accomplished  in 
his  death,  though  we  must  not  here  include 
that  further  accomplishment."     The  expres- 
sion  used   by   Jesus   might,   very    naturally, 
refer  to  his  work  in  preaching  the  gospel  of 
the   kingdom,  in   gaining    disciples  from  the 
people,  and  in  training  a  select  company  of 

W 


these  by  special  instruction  to  carry  forward 
his  work  after  his  return  to  glory;  but  the 
analogy  of  certain  passages  already  consid- 
ered, leads  rather  to  the  view  stated  above, 
that  he  anticipates  the  moment  of  his  death, 
and  looks  back  upon  his  work  as  brought  to  a 
perfect  end  by  that  propitiatory  sacrifice. 
(Comp.  13:  31;  16:  11.) 

5.  And   now.    Since  the  appointed  hour 
has  come.     Glorify  thou    me.     The  corre- 
spondence between  I  .  .  thee,  verse  4,  and 
thou  me,  in  this  verse,  is  much  more  striking 
in   the  Greek  than  in  the  English;    for  the 
Greek  pronouns  are  emphatic  in  both  cases, 
and  they  follow  each  other  with  no  interven- 
ing word  (eyio  o-€  .  .  (iie  trv).     The  language  is, 
therefore,  in  form  and  spirit,  a  plea  for  re- 
ciprocity:    "I   glorified  thee  on  the  earth — 
glorify  thou   me  in    heaven."      With    thine 
own  self.     The  sense  of  the  preposition,  in 
such   a  construction   as    this,  is    said    to    be 
always,  in   the  Fourth  Gospel,   local,   either 
literally  (i:39;  4:  m;  u:25;  19:25),  or  figuratively 
(8:38;  14:17,23.)     In  the  latter  case,  it  expresses 
a  direct  spiritual  connection  ( Westcott).     This 
expression   points    to  life   in    the   immediate 
presence  of  God  in  heaven  as  contrasted  with 
life  among  men  on  earth.     With  the  glory, 
etc.     Jesus  here  refers  to  what  has  been  called 
his  threefold  state— to  a  state  of   glory,    in 
which  he  lived  with  the  Father,  before  the 
creation  of  the  world,  to  a  state  of  humilia- 
tion  among  men,  into  which  he   entered   at 
birth,  and  in  which  he  was  still  living,  and  to 
a  state  of  re-assumed  glory  with  the  Father, 
to  which  he  was  now  looking  forward  as  his 
just  reward.     Hence,  this  language  is  a  full 
warrant  for  the  Evangelist's  testimony'  in  1 :  1, 
as  to  the  pre-existence  of  the  Word,  and  in 
1 :  14,  as  to  his  incarnation.     For  Jesus  seems 
to  speak,  in  this  place,  of  his  pre-existence 
with  the  Father,  in  possession  of  divine  glory, 
as  if  it  were  a  matter  of  personal  conscious- 
ness.    His   kenosis,  or,   humiliation,  did   not, 
therefore,    interrupt    the    continuity    of   his 
his  higher  life  as  the  Divine  Word  ;   did   not 
extinguish,  in  his  higher  nature,  the  light  of 


338 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVII. 


6  "I  have  manifested  thy  name  unto  the  men 
*  which  thou  gavesl  me  out  of  the  world:  thine  they 
were,  and  thou  gavest  them  me ;  and  they  }iave  kept 
thy  word. 


6  world  was.  I  manifested  thy  name  unto  the  men 
whom  thou  gavest  me  out  ol  the  world:  thine  they 
were,  and  thou  gavest  them  to  me;  and  they  have 


a  Ps.  22:  22;  ver.  26 d  ch.  6,  37,  39;  10:  29;  15:  19;  ver.  2,  9,  11. 


memory,  as  to  the  past.  In  the  spiritual 
centre  of  his  being  he  was  one  and  the  same 
before  and  after  his  incarnation. 

But  what  is  meant  by  the  glory  which  I 
had?  The  same  thing,  perhaps,  which  is 
called  in  Phil.  2:6,  "the  form  of  God,"— 
i.  c,  a  mode  of  existence  corresponding  with 
the  proper  idea  of  God,  one  in  which  the  attri- 
butes of  the  Godhead  are  exercised  and  re- 
vealed in  the  highest  and  freest  manner  pos- 
sible. To  such  a  state  of  existence  or  life, 
Jesus  now  asks  to  be  restored.  Yet  the  Eter- 
nal Word  was  not  to  be  reinstated  in  glory 
without  his  human  nature.  He  was  to  be 
exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  power,  not  as  a 
divine  being  merely,  or  as  a  human  being 
merely,  but  as  a  theanthropic  Prince  and 
Saviour.  Clothed  in  humanity,  the  Word 
was  to  ascend  into  heaven.  ( Acts i:. 1,9.)  And 
»<)  at  the  resurrection  of  the  just,  he  will 
"fashion  anew  the  body  of  our  humiliation, 
that  it  may  be  conformed  to  the  body  of  his 

glory."    (Phil.  3:11,  22.  Rev.  Ver.) 

6-8.  Transition  to  His  Prayer  for 
THE  Eleven.  These  verses  may  be  regarded, 
with  Wei.ss,  as  an  expansion  of  what  is  record- 
ed in  the  fourth  verse,  or  as  an  introduction  to 
the  intercessory  prayer  which  follows,  {ver.919.) 
The  latter  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  their 
object.  But  we  see  no  reason  why  they  may 
not  be  regarded  as  serving  both  purposes. 

6.  I  have  manifested  thy  name.  It 
would  be  safer  to  translate,  as  in  the  Revised 
Version:  Imnyiifested  thy  name ;  for  Jesus  is, 
doubtless,  thinking  of  this  manifestation  as 
something  completed  in  the  past.  By  thy 
name,  is  meant  "all  that  thy  name  signifies 
to  those  who  believe  on  thy  Son,  and  have 
learned  from  him  thy  character."  Hence, 
that  name  must  be  far  more  significant  to 
Christians  than  it  was  to  the  ancient  Israelites 
—than  it  can  be  to  any  who  know  not  God  as 
the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Unto 
the  men  which  thou  gavest  me  out  of  the 
world.  Which,  ought  to  be  w/iow.  Whether 
the  giving  here  mentioned  is  merelj'  another 
expression  for  the  drawing  of  6:  44  (comp.  6  : 
87,  39),  or  is  an  act  of  the  Father  in  the  coun- 


sels of  heaven,  has  been  considered  doubtful. 
The  latter  view  must  not  be  rejected  as  incon- 
sistent with  free  moral  agency  on  the  part  of 
man.  For  if  God  could  know  in  eternity 
that  any  persons  would  believe  in  Christ 
(whether  with  or  without  the  influence  of 
special  grace),  he  could  give  these  persons  to 
his  Son.  And  such  a  giving  in  purpose  and 
promise,  would  naturally  be  followed  in  time 
by  influence  tending  to  bring  them  to  faith  in 
Jesus.  Jesus  now  has  in  mind  his  immediate 
disciples,  whom  God,  the  Father,  had  given 
to  him  in  the  latter  sense,  as  well  as  in  the 
former,  in  time,  as  well  as  in  eternity.  The 
words,  out  of  the  world,  show  the  moral 
character  of  the  people  from  whom  the 
Father  had  taken  these  disciples.  They  had 
been  part  of  a  sinful  multitude,  and  from  that 
multitude  they  had  been  separated  and  given 
to  Christ.  Thine  they  were,  and  thou 
gavest  them  me.  In  what  sense  were  they 
the  Father's  before  they  were  Christ's?  (1) 
Scarcely  in  the  sense  of  their  having  been 
members  of  the  chosen  people,  Israelites,  be- 
fore they  were  Christians.  For  they  were 
taken  out  of  the  Avorld,  and  given  to  Christ; 
nothing  is  said  of  their  Jewish  descent  or 
nationality;  this  thought  seems  to  be  wholly 
foreign  to  the  context.  (2)  Perhaps,  in  the 
sense  that,  even  before  they  believed  in 
Christ,  they  were  true  servants  of  God — "Is- 
raelites in  whom  there  was  no  guile."  In 
favor  of  this  view  may  be  urged  two  consid- 
erations: first,  that  the  Eleven  seem  to  have 
been  alreadj^  devout  men,  "waiting  for  the 
consolation  of  Israel,"  when  they  first  saw 
Jesus;  and,  secondly,  that,  if  so  regarded  in 
this  passage,  they  belonged  to  the  Father  in 
the  same  full,  spiritual  sense  in  which  they 
afterwards  belonged  to  Christ.  But  we  can- 
not go  as  far  as  a  writer  who  says:  "Evi- 
dently the  gift  in  this  case  is  that  which  turns 
them  over  to  Christ  as  his  actual  disciples,  and 
the  meaning  of  the  thine  they  were,  then, 
is,  that  in  the  act  of  conversion,  the  funda- 
mental relation  aff"ected  is  that  to  the  Father, 
and  that  they  therefore  become  his  children  ; 
and  that  he  then,  having  acquired  a  right  to 


Cn.  XVII.] 


JOHN. 


339 


7  Now  they  have  knowu  that  all  things  whatsoever 
thou  hast  given  me  are  of  thee. 

8  For  I  have  given  unto  them  the  words  "which 
thou  gavest  lue:  and  they  have  received  tfiein,  'and 
have  known  surely  that  1  came  out  from  thee,  and 
they  have  believed  "that  thou  didst  send  me. 


7  kept  thy  word.    Now  they  know  that  all  things 

8  whatsoever  thou  hast  given  me  are  from  thee:  for 
the  words  which  thou  gavest  me  1  have  given  unto 
them:  and  they  received  l/iem,  and  knew  of  a  truth 
that  1  came  forth  from  thee,  and  they  believed  that 


I  ch.  8:28;  12:  49;  14:  10 b  ch.  16:  27,  30;  ver.  25. 


them  that  he  did  not  have  before,  gives  them 
to  Christ."  The  idea  that  conversion  afteets, 
primarily  and  directly  the  sinner's  relation  to 
the  Father,  and  only  through  the  Father  his 
relation  to  Christ,  is  not,  we  think,  contained 
in  these  words;  but  it  may  be  probable  that 
the  Eleven  were  actually  converted  before 
they  knew  Jesus  the  Christ,  and,  therefore, 
probable  that  their  conscious  relation  to  God 
was  changed  at  conversion,  while  their  con- 
scious relation  to  Jesus  began  with  their  later- 
gained  knowledge  of  him,  and  faith  in  him. 
(3)  In  the  sense  that  they  were  the  Father's, 
by  virtue  of  his  eternal  purpose  of  creation 
and  redemption,  in  which  things  that  are  not 
are  counted  as  though  they  were.  Having 
been  given  to  the  Son,  in  consideration  of  his 
death  for  them,  they  were  in  due  time  drawn 
to  him,  and  made,  in  a  practical  sense,  "his 
own,"  so  that  it  was  possible  for  them  to  sing: 

From  everlasting  we  are  his, 
In  love's  eternal  counsel  given; 

And  he  himself  our  portion  is, 
The  glory  of  our  promised  heaven. 

This  broader  view  of  the  Father's  ownership 
of  his  people  agrees  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  (lO:  15.16,26, 27:  11:52;  12:32;  17:20,2*; 
cnmp.  Acts  18: 10),  with  the  Statement  of  Paul,  that 
believers  were  chosen  in  Christ  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  (Eph.  i:4),  and  with 
the  apostolic  preaching  of  repentance  toward 
God,  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  (Acts  20:21)  as 
necessary  to  salvation.  Hence,  we  may  sup- 
pose that  the  fundamental  relation  to  the 
Saviour,  as  well  as  to  the  Father,  is  imme- 
diately determined  by  conversion.  And  they 
have  kept  thy  word.  That  is,  "the  word 
which  I  have  spoken  to  them,  and  by  means 
of  which  I  have  made  known  to  them  thy 
name.  This  word  they  have  heard  and 
obeyed  My  giving  it  to  them  has,  therefore, 
been  for  thy  glory."  Like  Paul,  Jesus  was 
most  generous  in  commending  whatever  was 
worthy  of  approval. 

7.  Now  they  have  known.  Noav,  is  an 
adverb  of  time.  The  perfect,  have  known, 
is  probably  correct,  being  retained  by  Lach., 


Tisch.,  Treg.,  West.  &  Hort,  after  N  B  C  D 
L  Y,  etc.  The  sense  is,  they  have  now 
learned,  or  come  to  know.  For  the  verb  used 
may  signify  the  process  of  acquiring  knowl- 
edge, as  well  as  the  result  of  that  process; 
and  it  seems  to  be  used  here  in  the  former 
sense.  That  all  things  whatsover  thou 
hast  given  me.  Jesus  appears  to  be  think- 
ing of  his  entire  ministry  on  earth  as  given  to 
him;  not  as  a  succession  of  actions,  which, 
though  intended  to  manifest  the  Father's  will, 
have  nevertheless  sprung  from  himself  alone, 
but  as  words  and  deeds,  which  he  has  been 
commissioned  by  his  Father  to  accomplish.  In 
this  clause,  the  perfect,  hast  given,  is  support- 
ed by  Tisch.,  Treg.,  West.  &  Hort,  though 
there  is  some  authority  (A  B)  for  the  simple 
past,  gavest.  Are  from  thee.  In  all  things 
Christ  is  conscious  of  having  done  the  very 
things  which  have  been  given  him,  as  it  were, 
from  the  presence  and  mind  of  the  Father; 
and  this  the  disciples  have  now  learned  to 
know.  In  no  saying  or  miracle  had  he  acted 
independently  of  the  Father's  plan  and  com- 
mission, but  always  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  same. 

8.  For  I  have  given  unto  them  the 
words  which  thou  gavest  me.  In  this  in- 
stance it  would  be  well  to  preserve  the  order 
of  the  Greek  words  in  translation,  (as  is 
done  in  the  Kevised  Version) ;  for  that 
order  corresponds  with  the  order  of  events, 
and  is,  at  the  same  time,  consistent  with  the 
genius  of  our  language,  thus:  ^' For  the 
words  which  thou  gavest  me  I  have  given  unto 
them.^^  By  this  verse,  Jesus  may  be  said  to 
justify  and  explain  ver.  7,  or,  to  give  the 
reasons  why  his  disciples  have  learned  that 
his  ministry  is  from  God.  The  first  of  these 
was  the  faithfulness  of  his  own  teaching.  The 
second,  that  his  teaching  was  the  Father's 
teaching.  His  words,  from  first  to  last,  had 
been  his  Father's  words,  fresh  from  the  mint 
of  heaven.  They  could,  therefore,  be  recog- 
nized as  divine.  "On  the  truth  of  this  saying 
stands  the  whole  fabric  of  creeds  and  doc- 
trines.    It  is  the  ground  of  authority  to  the 


340 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVII. 


9  I  pray  for  them :  "  I  pray  not  for  the  world,  but 
for  them  which  thou  hast  given  me;  lor  they  aie 
thine. 

lU  And  all  mine  are  thine,  and  ''thine  are  mine;  and 
I  am  glorified  in  them. 


9  thou  didst  send  me.    I  ^  pray  for  them  :  I  i  pray  not 

for  the  world,  but  for  those  whom  thou  ha.st  given 

10  me;    for  they  are  thine:   and  all  things   that   are 

mine  are  thine,  and  thine  are   mine:    and   1   am 


a  1  John  5  :  19 6  ch.  16 :  15. 1  Gr.  make  request. 


preacher,  of  assurance  to  the  believer,  of  ex- 
istence to  the  church.  It  is  the  source  from 
which  the  perpetual  stream  of  Christian 
teaching  flows.  All  our  testimonies,  instruc- 
tions, exhortations,  derive  their  first  origin, 
and  continuous  power,  from  the  fact  that  the 
Father  has  given  to  the  Son,  the  Son  has 
given  to  his  servants,  the  words  of  truth  and 
life." — Bernard.  And  they  have  received 
them.  More  strictly:  And  they  received 
them;  that  is,  when  I  gave  to  them  these 
words,  from  time  to  time.  And  have  known 
surely.  Again,  the  simple  past  would  be  a 
better  rendering  of  the  Greek:  and  knew 
surely — i.  e.,  truly,  or  of  a  truth,  as  in  Re- 
vised Version.  By  receiving  in  faith  the  words 
of  Jesus,  they  gained  a  true  knowledge  of 
this  fact,  adds  the  Lord,  that  I  came  out 
from  thee — i.  e.,  from  with  thee.  For  the 
Greek  prepositions  («  in  composition  and 
xopa),  do  not  signify  "out  of,"  but  "from  the 
presence  of,"  or,  "from  companionship  with.'' 
Of  this,  his  coming  from  his  divine  condition 
with  the  Father,  he  had  oft-^n  testified  ;  and  it 
now  appears  that  the  Eleven  had  received  his 
testimony  as  true.  And,  believing  that  he 
had  come  from  his  place  with  God,  they 
naturally  believed  that  he  was  God's  messen- 
ger to  men.  Hence,  the  words:  and  they 
have  believed  that  thou  didst  send  me. 
Accordingly,  the  words  of  Jesus  were  be- 
lieved to  be  God's  message  to  them,  and 
whenever  the  Saviour  bore  witness  to  his 
being  sent  from  the  Father,  they  received  his 
testimony.  Have,  ought  to  be  omitted,  as  in 
the  Revised  Version  ;  for  the  original  verb  is 
not  in  the  perfect  tense. 

9-19.  Prayer  FOR  THE  Eleven  (1)  That 
They  May  be  Divinely  Kept  (9-16),  and 
(2)  That  They'  May  be  Sanctified  (17- 
19.) 

9.  I  pray  for  them.  The  pronoun  I  is 
emphatic.  The  verb  translated  pray,  would 
be  adequately'  represented  hy  the  English 
term  ask,  and  the  preposition  translated  for, 
signifies,  properly,  in  respect  to.  The  sense, 
then,  is:  "I  myself  present  a  request  in  re- 
spect to  my  disciples,  who  have  thus  believed 


my  words,  and  recognized  my  mission  from 
thee."  I  pray  not  for  the  world.  By  the 
world,  is  meant  the  unbelieving  part  of 
mankind.  And  the  clause  brings  into  bold 
relief  the  special  object  of  the  Saviour  in  the 
petition  here  offered.  It  shows  the  concen- 
tration of  his  thoughts  upon  the  welfiire  of 
his  disciples.  His  request  is  not  general,  but 
specific ;  offered  for  a  particular  class  of  per- 
sons, and  supported  by  reasons  drawn  from 
their  relations  to  his  Father  and  himself.  But 
it  cannot  safelj'  be  inferred  from  this,  that  he 
never  prayed  for  the  world  at  large,  or  for 
persons  who  would  finally  perish  in  their  sins. 
That  he  could  not  pray  for  them  in  the  same 
terms  as  for  his  own,  is  natural ;  that  the 
blessings  which  he  would  ask  for  his  enemies, 
must  be  different,  in  some  respects,  from  those 
which  he  would  ask  for  his  friends,  is  certain; 
but  this  passage  does  not  warrant  the  assertion 
that  he  forbore  on  all  occasions  to  pray  for 
makind  as  ruined  \i\  sin  and  needing  salva- 
tion. But  for  them  which  thou  hast 
given  me,  for  they  are  thine.  The  fact 
that  the3'  are  Christ's  is  itself  a  reason  why 
he  should  pray  for  them,  and  why  his  Father 
should  listen  to  his  request.  The  fact  that 
they  had  been  given  him  by  the  Father,  adds 
force  to  that  reason.  And  the  fact  that  they 
are  still  the  Father's,  though  given  to  Christ, 
completes  the  appeal.  This  appeal  could  not 
have  been  made,  in  this  form,  for  the  ungodly' 
world. 

10.  And  all  mine  are  thine.  Literally, 
with  the  Revised  Version  :  and  all  things  that 
are  mine  are  thine.  The  pronouns  are  not  in 
the  masculine,  but  in  the  neuter  form,  and 
their  meaning  is  as  comprehensive  as  possible ; 
it  allows  no  exception.  "Whatever  belongs  to 
Christ  belongs  to  God  also;  whatever  belongs 
to  the  Son  belongs  to  the  Father  as  well.  The 
two  have  no  separate  possessions  or  interests; 
they  have,  so  to  speak,  all  things  common. 
More  than  once,  according  to  this  Evangelist, 
had  Jesus  affirmed  the  inseparable  unity  of 
his  knowledge,  will,  and  action,  Avith  the 
Father's  ;  now  he  affirms  that  he  has  nothing 
which  does  not  belong  to  the  Father  also. 


Ch.  XVII.] 


JOHN. 


341 


11  "  And  now  I  am  no  more  in  tlie  world,  but  these  I  11  glorified  in  them.  And  I  am  no  more  in  the  world, 
are  in  the  world,  und  I  come  to  thee.  Holy  Father,  and  these  are  in  the  world,  and  I  come  to  thee, 
(•keep    through    thine    own    name   those   whom   thou  Holy  Father,  keep  them  lu  thy   name,  whom  thou 

hast  given  me,  nhat  they  may  he  one,  ■'as  we  are.  |       hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one  even  as  we 


ocb.  13:  1;  16:  28....M  Pet.  1:5;  Jude  1....C  ver.21,  etc....<i  ch.  10:  30. 


And  thine  are  mine.  Or,  and  that  are 
thine  are  mine.  An  expression  just  as  com- 
prehensive as  tiie  preceding.  The  possessions 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  are  identical  and  co-exten- 
sive with  those  of  the  infinite  Father.  "The 
words  are  all-inclusive,  and  assert  absolute 
community  in  all  things  between  the  Father 
and  the  'Son:'—Watkins.  The  feelings  of 
Christ  are  therefore  certain  to  be  in  perfect 
harmony  with  those  of  his  Father.  Hence,  it 
is  impossible  for  him  to  overlook  any  part  of 
the  universe,  in  his  prayer  for  a  special 
blessing  on  his  disciples.  The  bearing  of  this 
language  upon  the  question  concerning  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  is  too  obvious  to  escape 
notice,  and  whoever  comprehends  its  real  sig- 
nificance will  perceive  how  well  it  agrees  with 
many  other  passages  in  this  Gospel,  (c-  g- 1 :  i-i; 
5:19,20.)  And  I  am  glorified  in  them. 
Them,  may  refer  to  all  things  that  are  7nine, 
and  all  that  are  tliine,  in  the  preceding  clauses 
of  this  verse,  or  to  the  pronoun  they,  in  the 
last  clause  of  verse  9.  If  the  latter  reference 
be  intended,  as  I  suppose,  the  intervening 
words  "  and  all  mine  are  thine  and  thine  are 
mine,"  are  a  sort  of  parenthetic  expansion  of 
tlie  thought,  "for  they  are  thine'' — i.  e.,  a 
further  thought  in  the  same  direction,  but  not 
essential  to  what  precedes  and  follows.  Again, 
the  verb,  whicli  is  in  the  perfect  tense,  may 
be  translated  have  been  glorified,  instead  of 
am  glorified  ;  for  it  binds  together  the  past 
and  the  present,  and  represents  the  spirit  of 
trust,  of  love,  and  of  obedience,  which  had 
been  for  months  in  the  disciples,  as  abiding  in 
them  still,  and  doing  honor  to  their  Lord. 
For  the  glory  of  Christ  is  revealed  in  the 
character  and  life  of  "his  own."  Weiss  ap- 
pears to  restrict  the  verb  to  a  conscious  recog- 
nition and  appreciation  of  Christ's  divine 
origin  and  mission  by  the  disciples,  saying: 
"They  recognized  him  in  his  glory  (ver. :, 8), 
and,  therefore,  he  was  glorified  in  their  hearts 
(11:4;  12:28;  i:i:3i.)"  But  the  widcr  reference 
spoken  of  above,  agrees  better  with  the  gen- 
eral tenor  of  Scripture  as  to  the  waj'  in  which 
the  Saviour  is  glorified  by  his  followers,  and 
is  equally  suited  to  the  context  here. 


11.  And  now  I  am  no  more  in  the 
world.  "The  declaration  of  the  grounds  on 
whicli  the  prayer  is  urged  is  followed  by  the 
statement  of  the  circumstances  which  made 
the  prayer  necessary." — Westcott.  Now, 
must  be  stricken  from  the  Common  Version, 
because  it  represents  nothing  in  the  original. 
The  simple  words  are:  and  I  am  no  more 
in  the  world — where  I  have  been  the  Teacher 
and  Guide  of  the  Eleven  for  nearly  three 
years.  But  these  are  in  the  Avorld. 
These— not  they ;  these  who  are  by  mj'  side, 
and  are  my  own,i  these  are  in  the  world, 
a  "world  that  lieth  in  wickedness,"  or,  "in 
the  wicked  one"  (iJohn5:i9.)  Whether  the 
world  is  here  thought  of  as  hostile  or  as 
seductive,  as  persecuting  the  disciples  of 
Christ  because  of  their  union  with  him  (t5:  is, 
19;  16:2),  or  as  cuticing  them  to  forsake  him  for 
the  pleasures  of  sin,  may  not  be  certain;  pos- 
sibly it  is  contemplated  as  both  seductive  and 
cruel,  though  the  former  characteristic  seems, 
by  the  sequel,  to  be  more  in  the  mind  of 
Jesus.  And  I  come  to  thee.  Notice  the 
present  tense  of  the  verbs  in  this  verse.  The 
future  is  so  near  and  so  real  to  the  mind  of 
Jesus,  that  he  speaks  of  it  as  present.  "I  am 
no  more  in  the  world;  these  are  in  the  world. 
I  am  coming  to  thee."  How  vivid  and  in- 
tense, yet  calm  and  simple  and  tender  is  this 
language !  No  merely  human  teacher  ever  so 
talked  and  prayed  with  his  pupils.  Heaven 
and  earth  were  brought  together  by  this  high 
priestly  intercession.  Holy  Father.  A 
most  reverent  and  significant  form  of  address! 
The  epithet  holy,  seems  to  anticipate  the 
great  petition  for  the  sanctification  of  his  dis- 
ciples, by  recognizing  as  supremely  excellent 
the  moral  purity  of  God.  Weiss  accounts  for 
this  epithet  by  saying  that  "  it  belongs  to  the 
holj'  God,  in  his  separation  from  the  world, 
with  its  impurity,  to  preserve  the  disciples 
also,  in  a  like  separation,  from  its  polluting 

1  Yet  the  text  is  nncert.iin.  Tisch.,  West.  &  Hort, 
after  X.  B,  and  a  few  cursives,  substitute  aurol,  Ihey, 
for  ouToi,  these,  which  is  retained  by  Lach.,  Treg.,  and 
Anglo-Am.  Revisers,  after  C  Dgr  L  X  Y,  and  many 
cursives. 


342 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVII. 


12  While  I  was  with  them  in  the  world,  <•  I  kept  them 
iu  thy  name:  those  that  thou  gavest  me  I  have  kept, 
and  '  none  of  them  is  lost, '  but  the  sou  of  perdition  ; 
"ithat  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled. 


12  are.  While  I  was  with  them,  I  kept  them  in  thy 
name  whom  thou  hast  given  me :  and  1  guarded 
them,  and  not  one  of  them  perished,  but  the  son  of 
perdition;    that  the  scripture    might    be    fulfilled. 


ich.  6:  39;  10:  28;  Heb.  2:  13 6  ch.  18:  9;  1  John  2  :  19 c  oh.  6:  70;  13: 18 d  Ps.  109:  8;  Acts  1 :  20. 


influence."  The  word  Father  appeals  to  all 
that  is  benignant,  tender,  and  loving  in  the 
divine  nature;  but,  as  used  by  Jesus,  it  cannot 
be  aflirmed  to  have  any  greater  significance 
here  than  in  other  places.  Keep  through 
thine  own  name  those  whom  thou  hast 
given  me.  The  best  accredited  text  (Lach., 
Tisch.,  Treg.,  West.  &  Hurt,  after  N  B  C  L  Y 
r  A  A  n,  etc.),  requires  a  different  version, 
viz. :  keep  them  in  thy  name  which  thou  hast 
given  me.  The  expression  is  remarkable,  but 
nevertheless  intelligible  and  profound.  It  is 
thus  explained  by  Weiss:  "  The  name  itself, 
■which  has  been  manifested  to  them  (ver. e),  in 
so  far  as  it  denotes  the  nature  of  God  revealed 
in  Christ,  has  become,  in  consequence  of 
faith  (ver.  s),  their  life-element,  from  which,  as 
long  as  they  are  kept  in  it,  they  draw  all  the 
incentives*  and  powers  for  their  new  life  and 
work,  and  so,  that  name  separates  the  holy 
S))here  in  which  they  move  from  the  world 
around  them."  Just  as  the  lame  man  was 
healed  "  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Naza- 
reth "  (Aots4:iol,  and  just  as  there  is  no  "other 
name  under  heaven,  that  is  given  among  men, 
in  which  we  must  be  saved"  (Acts  4:  12.  Bit.  cn. 
Vers.),  so  God,  the  Father,  is  asked  to  keep  in 
his  own  name,  which  he  had  given  to  Jesus, 
his  own  servants,  who  were  also  Christ's. 
The  name  stands  for  the  whole  character,  for 
the  purity  and  power,  the  love  and  grace  of 
the  Being  denoted  by  it.  And  the  name  of 
the  Father  had  been  given  to  Christ,  in  this 
sense  at  least,  that  ho  was  to  make  known, 
and  had  made  known,  by  his  life  and  teach- 
ing, the  true  character  of  God.  Hence,  the 
name  of  God  was  in  him.  Hence,  too,  he 
could  say  :  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen 
the  Father."  And  so  the  prayer  of  Jesus  is, 
that  the  disciples  niaj^  be  kept  in  union  with 
God,  as  revealed  by  himself,  that  their  "life," 
as  an  apostle  afterwards  wrote,  may  be  "hid 
with  Christ  in  God."  (Coi.3:3.)i     That  they 

1  There  is  no  doubt  that  ver.  11  must  read  "  in  thy 
name  which  (01)  thou  hast  given  me,"  as  found  in  }<  A 
B  C  L,  eleven  other  uncials,  most  cursives,  Peshito, 
Harklean  and  Jerusalem  Syriac,  Thebaic,  Armenian, 
some  Fathers;  and  with  a  merely  formal  difference  (o) 


may  be  one,  as  we  are.  Or,  more  exactly, 
even  as  we.  This  is  the  end  sought,  viz.,  the 
unity  of  all  the  disciples.  But,  wliat  kind  of 
oneness  is  here  meant?  "The  unity,"  re- 
marks Westcott,  "is  not  only  of  will  and 
love,  but  of  nature,  perfectly  realized  in  ab- 
solute harmony  in  Christ."  If  by  "nature," 
Westcott  means  inward  disposition,  or  charac- 
ter, his  language  is  evidently  correct;  but,  if 
he  means  by  it  something  more,  namelj-,  an 
essential  oneness  of  being,  there  is  reason  to 
doubt  its  correctness. 

12.  While  I  was  with  them  in  the 
world.  Jesus,  therefore,  now  looks  back 
upon  his  earthly  ministry  as  finished.  He 
has  reached  the  end.  He  thinks  of  himself 
as  no  longer  with  his  disciples,  preserving 
them  from  apostasy  by  his  wisdom,  watchful- 
ness, and  care.  In  the  world,  is  probably  an 
addition  to  the  text,  repeated  from  the  pre- 
ceding verse;  for  it  is  omitted  by  the  best 
editors,  in  agreement  with  the  earliest  manu- 
scripts. (N  B  C*  D  L,  etc.).  I  kept  them  in 
thy  name.  The  I  is  emphatic.  It  was  by 
his  own  personal  care  and  influence  that  they 
had  been  preserved  during  his  intercourse 
with  them.  And  it  may  be  noticed  that  the 
tense  of  the  verb  translated  kept,  describes  a 
continuous  process,  not  an  act  performed  once 
for  all.  Moreover,  according  to  the  best  sup- 
ported text,  there  should  be  no  pause  after 
name,  but  the  sentence  should  be  completed, 
as  in  the  preceding  verse:  which  thou  hast 
given  me.  See  interpretation  of  this  expres- 
sion in  ver.  11.  McClellan  adopts  a  slightly 
diflerent  reading  here,  and  in  ver.  11,  (namely, 
6,  instead  of  i),  and  supposes  that  the  pro- 
noun represents  the  disciples  (them)  in  their 
'■''corporate  unity."  He  saj's:  "Now,  with 
the  reading  'that  which'  (o),  how  affectingly 
does  the  intercession  ri.se  in  fervor  and  power! 
How  tenderly  it  pleads !  How  earnestly  it 
wrestles!     Yes,  much  more  so  even  than  with 


in  D  (first  hand)  X  U,  several  cursives.  The  other 
reading,  "whom  thou  hast  given  nie"  (06s),  is  here 
supported  by  no  uncial  but  D  (second  hand),  by  only  a 
few  cursives,  and  Old  Latin  (some  copies),  Vulgate, 
Memphitic,    .£thiopic,    Gothic.      It   is   obvious    that 


Ch.  XVII.] 


JOHN. 


343 


13  And  now  come  I  to  thee;  and  these  things  I  speak  I  13  But  now  I  come  to  thee;  and  these  things  I  speak 
in  the  world,  that  they  might  have  my  joy  fulfilled  in  in  the  world,  that  they  may  have  my  joy  made  full 
themselves. 


the  whom  of  the  Authorized  Version,  which 
yet  happily  retained  the  correct  personal  ap- 
plication :  Ho/i/  Father,  preserve  them  in  thy 
nnme—thetn,  that  gift  of  thine  to  me — that 
body,  that  little  flock,  which  thou  hast  given 
me — that  they  tnay  be  one  as  we  are."  But 
the  preponderance  of  testimony  in  favor  of 
the  other  reading,  forbids  us  to  accept  this 
view.  The  best  authenticated  reading  re- 
quires another  change,  thus:  and  I  guarded 
them,.  Grodet  suggests  that  the  verb  kept, 
refers  to  the  result  gained,  and  the  verb 
guarded,  to  the  means  employed.  But  Weiss 
holds,  with  greater  reason,  that  "preserving 
them  in  the  right  element  of  life  was  accom- 
panied by  guarding  them  from  hostile  influ- 
ences, which  might  draw  them  away  from 
that  element" — (a  free  translation.)  And 
none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the  son  of  per- 
dition. Better:  was  lost.  The  word  per- 
dition (iirioAeia?),  is  from  the  same  root  as  the 
word  loas  lost  (aTrioAeTo),  and  this  fact  may  be 
imperfectly'  represented  by  translating  as  fol- 
lows :  and  no  one  of  them  went  to  perdition, 
except  the  son  of  perdition.  Was  Judas, 
then,  one  of  those  given  to  Jesus,  and  kept  by 
him?  This  is  the  most  obvious  sense  of  the 
words,  and  is  distinctly  affirmed  by  many  in- 
terpreters. Thus,  Watkins:  "He,  then,  was 
included  in  'them  which  thou  gavest  me.' 
For  him  there  was  the  same  preservation,  and 
the  same  guardianship  as  for  those  who  re- 
mained in  the  fold.  The  sheep  wandered 
from  the  flock,  and  was  lost  by  his  own  act." 
On  the  other  hand,  Westcott  remarks,  that 
"  the  excepting  phrase  {el  /xq),  does  not,  neces- 
sarily, imply  that  Judas  is  reckoned  among 
those  whom  the  Lord  guarded.     The  excep- 


"  which  "  is  the  difficult  reading,  likely  to  have  been 
changed  to  '  whom,"  and  yet,  upon  reflection,  yielding 
a  good  sense.  So  in  ver.  11,  the  case  is  clear.  But  the 
evidence  stands  far  otherwise  in  ver.  12,  Here"  which" 
(i)  is  found  in  B  C  (first  hand)  L,  33,  64,  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria, and  (o)  in  S  (third  corrector),  Meraphitic,  The- 
baic, Jerusalem  Syriac.  Armenian,  while  "  whom"  (o&s) 
is  read  by  A  D  X  Y  r  A  A  n,  and  eight  other  uncials, 
most  cursives,  and  Old  Latin,  Vulgate,  Peshito,  and 
Harklean,  Syriac  .T'.thiopic,  Gothic.  Now  it  would  be 
easy  to  call  this  a  "  Western  and  Syrian  "  reading.  But 
how  explain  the  fact  that  so  very  many  authorities 


tion  may  refer  simply  to  the  statement,  not 
one  perished.  Compare  Matt.  12:  4;  Luke 
4:  26,27;  Gal.  1:  19;  2:  16;  Rev.  21:  27. 
Contrast  18:  9."  Winer  also  says  (?  67,  1.  e) : 
"Of  two  parallel  members  of  a  sentence,  the 
first  is  sometimes  expressed  in  such  terms  as 
to  appear  to  comprehend  the  second,  though, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  is  impos- 
sible" ;  and  he  cites  under  this  remark.  Acts 
27:  22;  Gal.  1:  19;  Rev.  21 :  27.  If  the  words 
kept  and  guarded,  describe  what  was  done 
eflectually  by  Jesus,  and  this  seems  to  be  the 
only  natural  interpretation  of  thein,  then, 
"from  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  impossible" 
that  Judas  was  meant  to  be  included,  and  this 
expression  is,  therefore,  in  a  grammatical  re- 
spect, parallel  to  Luke  4:  26,  27,  and  Gal.  1: 
19.  By  a  son  of  perdition,  is  to  be  under- 
stood one  who  is  subject  to,  or  an  heir  of  per- 
dition, (comp.  2  Thess.  2:  3;  Matt.  23:  15; 
Luke  10:  6;  Matt.  8:  12;  13:  38),  one  that  is 
about  to  perish.  Such  a  man  was  Judas. 
That  the  scriptnre  might  be  fulfilled. 
See  Notes  on  12:  38;  13:  18.  The  reference 
may  be  to  Ps.  41:  9,  or  to  109:  8.  At  all 
events,  the  sin  of  Judas  was  included  in  the 
wise  and  holy  plan  of  God,  and  had  been 
foreseen  and  foretold  long  before  by  the  pro- 
phetic Spirit.  But  the  sin  of  Judas  was  with- 
out excuse,  drawing  after  it  the  dreadful 
doom  which  is  signified  by  the  Wf)rd  perdi- 
tion. It  was  none  the  less  his  own  free  act 
because  it  was  embraced  in  the  foreknowledge 
and  plan  of  God. 

13.  And  now  come  I  to  thee.  But 
would  represent,  in  this  place,  the  original 
c(mjunction  (hi)  much  better  than  and.  For 
Winer  sa3'S  of  this  particle  {§  53,  7)  that  it 

have  "  whom  "  here,  and  "  which  "  in  the  immediately 
preceding  and  exactly  similar  sentence?  Are  not  the 
phenomena  best  accounted  for  by  supposing  that  in 
ver.  12  the  Saviour's  language  returns  to  the  expression 
of  ver.  6  and  9,  and  that  so  the  true  reading  is  "  which  " 
in  ver.  11  and  "  whom"  in  ver.  12?  Then  "  which"  in 
the  latter  case  would  be  an  "  Alexandrian  "  correction^ 
sustained  by  the  well-known  group  of  C  L,  Egyptian 
versions,  Cyril,  with  the  addition  of  B,  which  is  not 
wholly  a  stranger  either  to  "Alexandrian"  or  to 
"  Western  "  readings.— B. 


344 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVII. 


14  "I  have  given  them  thy  word;  'and  the  world  hath 
hated  them,  because  they  are  not  of  the  world,  "even  as 
I  am  not  of  the  world. 

15  1  pray  not  that  thou  shouldest  take  them  out  of 
the  world,  but  "^  that  thou  shouldest  keep  them  from  the 
evil. 


14  in  themselves.  I  have  given  them  thy  word :  and 
the  world  hated  them,  because  they  are  not  of  the 

15  world,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world.  I  i  pray  not 
that  thou  shouldest ,  take  them  ^from  the  world, 
but  that  thou  shouldest  keep  them  2  from  *  the  evil 


a  ver.  8 6  ch.  15:  18,  19;  1  John  3  :  13 c  ch.  8:  23;  ver.  16 d  M:itt.  6:  13;  G:il.  1 :  4  ;  2  Thess.  3:  3;  1  John  5  :  18. 1   Gr.make 

request 2  Gr.  out  of 3  Or,  eviZ. 


"connects  while  it  contrasts — i.  e.,  adds 
another  particular  different  from  what  pre- 
cedes;" and  Grimm  describes  it  as  "an  adver- 
sative, distinctive,  discretive  particle."  In 
most  cases,  then,  itshould  be  translated  "but," 
w"hile  it  may  sometimes  be  rendered,  approxi- 
mately, by  the  conjunction  "and."  Jesus 
represents  himself  as  now  going  to  the  Father, 
yet  he  has  not  quite  left  the  scenes  of  earth. 
His  point  of  view  seems  to  fluctuate  between 
a  work  that  has  been  closed,  and  one  that  is 
about  to  be  closed.  Here,  it  is  the  latter,  a 
work  at  the  point  of  being  closed.  That 
they  might  have  my  joy  fulfilled  in  them- 
selves. This  clause  should  be  read  as  in  the 
Kevised  Version  :  that  they  may  have  my  joy 
made  full  in  themselves.  And  the  joy  of 
Christ  was  perfect;  it  was  the  joy  of  perfect 
purity,  perfect  love,  and  perfect  communion 
with  the  Father.  Inward  peace,  trust,  hope, 
were  associated  with  wise,  far-seeing,  fruitful 
activity  for  the  honor  of  God,  and  the  wel- 
fare of  men,  and  the  result  was  joy  unspeak- 
able. 

14.  I  have  given  them  thy  word.  Ob- 
serve, (1)  that  the  pronoun  I  receives  a  cer- 
tain emphasis  in  the  original  which  it  is 
difficult  to  reproduce  in  English.  "I  have 
not  failed  in  my  mission  ;  in  accordance  with 
thy  will,  I  have  myself,  by  my  life  and 
teaching,  delivered  unto  them  thy  word.  B\' 
a  process,  begun  long  ago  and  continued 
down  to  the  present  hour,  this  has  been  ac- 
complished by  me."  (2)  That  the  expression 
thy  word,  represents  all  the  teachings  or  saj'- 
ings  of  Jesus  as  an  organic  unity,  as  one 
message.  Informal,  unsystematic,  and  sponta- 
neous as  they  are,  they  are  nevertheless  self- 
consistent,  harmonious,  and  interdependent, 
to  a  most  wonderful  degree.  One  spirit  per- 
vades them  all.  In  like  manner,  Christians 
now  speak  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  as  "the 
word  of  God,"  and  are  justified  in  so  doing 
by  the  example  of  Jesus.  And  the  Avorld 
hath  hated  them.  More  exactly  :  the  world 
hated  them.     As  if  the  hatred  of  the  world 


broke  out  decisively  and  at  once  against  them. 
Instruction  is  a  process  ;  the  manifestation  of 
hatred  may  be  concentrated  into  an  act, 
which  is,  as  it  were,  complete  in  itself,  though 
it  may  be  repeated  again  and  again.  For  a 
different  repre.sentation,  see  15:  18,  24.  Be- 
cause they  are  not  of  the  world.  To  be 
of  the  Avorld,  is  to  draw  one's  life  and  spirit, 
aims  and  motives,  from  the  world.  And  this 
had  ceased  to  be  the  case  with  the  Eleven. 
They  had  broken  with  the  unbelieving  world, 
and  had  become  allied  to  Christ.  Their  truest 
life,  their  ruling  motives,  were  drawn  from  a 
divine  source.  Even  as  I  am  not  of  the 
world.  Thus  graciouslj'  and  lovingly  does 
he  associate  them  with  himself,  presenting 
them,  imperfect  as  they  were,  to  his  Father, 
as  standing  on  the  same  plane  of  life  with 
himself,  and  drawing  their  inspirations  from 
above. 

15.  I  pray  not  that  thou  shouldest  take 
them  out  of  the  world.  This  might  have 
seemed  the  readiest  way  to  deliver  them  from 
evil,  and  to  render  perfect  their  joy.  To  take 
them  with  himself  into  glory,  would  be  to  re- 
move them  from  trial  and  conflict ;  but  with 
them,  as  with  him,  the  conflict  must  precede 
the  victory,  the  cross  must  come  before  the 
crown.  If  the  Captain  of  their  Salvation 
must  be  made  perfect  through  suffering,  so, 
also,  must  his  followers.  Therefore,  they 
must  be  in  the  world  for  a  season,  but  not  of 
it;  must  live  as  strangers  and  pilgrims  among 
those  whose  spirit  they  do  not  share,  whose 
way  of  life  thej'  condemn,  and  who,  by  reason 
of  this,  hate  them  and  persecute  them.  But 
that  thou  shouldest  keep  them  from  the 
evil.  Are  we  to  consider  the  evil  (toO 
nofKijpoC),  as  neuter,  or  as  masculine  ?  In  sup- 
port of  the  former  view,  Godet  urges  the 
meaning  of  the  preposition,  which  signifies, 
he  says,  out  of^  and  refers  to  a  domain  rather 
than  to  a  person.  But  to  this  Westcott  fur- 
nishes a  reply,  by  saying:  "Just  as  Jesus 
Christ  is  himself  the  medium  or  sphere  in 
which  the  believer  lives  and  moves  {iv  Xpmttw"), 


Ch.  XVII.] 


JOHN. 


345 


16  "They  are  not  of  the  world,  even  as  I  am  not  of 
the  world. 

17  'Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth:  'thy  word  is 
truth. 

18  <*  As  thou  hast  sent  me  into  the  world,  even  so  have 
I  also  sent  them  into  the  world. 


10  one.     They   are   not  of   the   world,   even   as   I   am 

17  not  of  the" world.    '  Sanctify  them  in  the  truth  ;  thy 

18  word  is  truth.     As  thou  didst  send  me  into  the 


28;   Ps.  119,142,  151;  ch.8:  40.... d  ch.  20:  21. 1  Or,  con- 


SO  the  prince  of  the  world,  the  evil  one,  is  the 
medium  or  sphere  in  which  thc-y  live  and 
move,  who  are  given  up  to  him  (Ivtw  irovripii)." 
Others  have  urged  that  it  would  have  "been 
unfitting  for  Jesus  to  have  thought  of  the 
devil  in  this  prayer."'  To  this,  Luthardt  re- 
plies: "It  would  be  much  more  correct  to 
say  that,  considering  the  decided  and  per- 
sistent manner  in  which  Jesus  places  himself 
and  his  work,  and  tlje  Fourth  Gospel  places 
both,  in  opposition  to  the  devil,  it  would 
necessarily  have  been  most  striking  if  there 
had  been  no  mention  of  the  devil,  either  in 
the  summation  of  all  Christian  prayer,  in  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  or  in  the  summation  of  all 
Christ's  prayer  in  the  high-priestly  praj'er." 
On  the  whole,  it  seems  to  me  probable  that 
Je«us  here  refers  to  the  adversary'  of  good, 
and  that  the  Revised  Version  is  correct. 
(Comp.  1  John  5 :  18,  19 ;  2  Thess.  3:3;  1  John 
2:  13,  14;  3:  12.)  If,  however,  the  expression 
be  neuter,  the  article  should  be  omitted  in 
translation. 

16.  They  are  not  of  the  world,  etc.  A 
repetition  of  the  last  part  of  the  14th  verse. 
Thus  the  Lord  associates  his  disciples  once 
more  with  himself;  but  now,  as  an  argument 
for  the  reque.«t  he  is  about  to  make.  Empha- 
sis is  given  to  the  Avorld,  by  the  position 
which  is  assigned  to  it  in  the  Greek  te.xt:  Of 
the  ivorld  they  are  not,  even  as  I  myself  nm 
not  of  the  ivorld.  I  myself  because  the  inser- 
tion of  the  Greek  pronoun  involves  a  certain 
degree  of  emphasis  not  suggested  by  the 
simple  pronoun  in  English. 

17.  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth. 
Rather,  with  the  Revised  Version  :  Sanctify 
them  in  the  truth.  For  the  critical  editors  omit 
the  pronoun  thy  (with  N*  B  C*  D  L,  etc.),  and 
the  leading  interpreters  give  to  the  preposi- 
tion iiv)  its  primary  sense  of  in.  The  truth 
— i.  e.,  Christian  truth,  as  embodied  in  Jesus 
Christ,  and  revealed  by  him,  is  the  element 
or  atmosphere  in  which  sanctification  is  ac- 
complished. But  what  is  the  blessing  ex- 
pressed by  the  word  sanctify?    It  may  mean 


either  to  devote  or  consecrate  one  to  a  holy 
service,  or  to  make  one  holy  in  character, 
and  thus  fit  for  a  holy  service.  The  former 
meaning  prevails  in  the  19th  verse,  but  the 
latter  here.  What  the  Eleven  needed  above 
all  things  was  a  profounder  apprehension  of 
Christian  truth,  and  a  holier  character;  "the 
equipment  with  divine  illumination,  power, 
courage,  joyfulness,  love,  inspiration,  etc., 
for  their  official  activity  (ver.  i8)  which 
should  ensue,  and  did  ensue,  by  means  of 
the  Holy  Spirit— 14:  17;  15:  26;  16:  7  sq." 
— Meyer.  "By  saying,  ''sanctify  them,'' 
Jesus  asks  for  them  a  will  wholly  devoted 
to  the  task  which  thej'  would  have  to  ac- 
complish in  the  world.  It  was  necessary 
that  all  their  powers,  all  their  talents, 
all  their  life,  should  be  consecrated  to  this 
great  work— the  salvation  of  men.  ...  It 
is  the  sublime  idea  of  Christian  holiness,  but 
envisaged  here,  where  the  apostles  are  re- 
ferred to,  as  fulfilling  itself  under  the  special 
form  of  the  Christian  ministry.'''  —  Godet. 
Thy  word  is  truth.  Thy  word— whatever 
thou  hast  spoken  is  truth  ;  and  truth  is  the 
proper  element  for  a  believing  soul.  "The 
word  which  is  thine"  must  partake  of  thy 
character,  must  be  holy,  divine,  and  su- 
premely important.  If  we  have  the  word  of 
Christ,  we  have  the  word  of  the  Father;  and 
if  we  have  the  word  of  the  Father,  we  have 
truth,  without  any  mixture  of  error.  Such 
truth  Christ  had  communicated  to  bis  dis- 
ciples; such  truth  wore  they  to  receive  from 
the  Holy  Spirit;  hy  such  truth  were  thej'  to 
be  qualified  for  their  work;  and  with  such 
truth  they  were  to  testify  of  Christ. 

18.  As  thou  hast  sent  me,  etc.  The  Re- 
vised Version  gives  the  tense  of  the  verbs 
more  correctly  than  the  Common  Version; 
but  Davidson's  translation  represents  still 
better  the  original.  It  reads  as  follows  :  Even 
as  thou  didst  send  me  into  the  world,  I  also 
sent  them  into  the  world.  The  precise  time 
when  Jesus  was  sent  into  the  world  was  that 
of  his  incarnation,  though  thirty  years  elapsed 


346 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVII. 


19  And  <•  for  their  sakes  I  sanctify  myself,  that  they 
alsotuight  be  sanctified  through  the  truth. 

20  Neither   pray   I   for  these   alone,   but   for  them 
also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word  ; 


19  world,  even  so  sent  I  them  into  the  world.    And  for 
their  sakes  I  i  sauctify  myself,  that  they  themselves 

20  also  may  be  sanctified  in  truth.    Neither  lor  these 
only  do  1  2  pray,  but  for  them  also  that  believe  on 


1 1  Cor.  1 :  2,  30 ;  I  Thess.  4:7;  Heb.  10 :  10. 1  Or,  com  crate 2  Gr.  make  request. 


before  he  entered  on  his  public  ministry.  So 
the  definite  time  when  the  apostles  were  sent 
into  the  world  was  that  of  their  temporary 

mission    fMatt.  10:5;  MarkS:  7;  Luke9:2)     tO    the     lost 

sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.  (Mait.io:6.)  Many 
of  his  instructions  and  predictions  at  that 
time  had  reference,  without  doubt,  to  their 
later  life-work.  The  world,  as  referred  to  in 
this  verse,  is  the  unbelieving  world — men 
alienated  from  the  love  and  service  of  God, 
men  who  knew  not  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

(Ter.  3.) 

19.  And  for  their  sakes.  The  entire 
mission  of  Clirist  was  for  the  benefit  of  man- 
kind, and  especially  for  the  good  of  his  true 
disciples,  represented  at  this  moment  hy  the 
Eleven.  I  sanctify  myself.  This  seems  to 
refer,  above  all,  to  his  sacrificial  death,  which 
now  remained  to  be  accomplished.  "A  wav 
stands  before  him  from  which  nature  shrinks 
back — the  way  of  sacrifice.  The  word  is  not, 
therefore,  to  be  understood  of  Jesus'  entrance 
into  the  divine  manner  of  being.  .  .  but  cer- 
tainly of  the  sacrificial  consecration  of  Jesus; 
only  that  this  is  to  be  viewed  as  the  acme  of 
his  entire  consecration  of  his  life  to  the  ser- 
vice of  God." — Ltithardt.  Yet  Godet,  (in 
his  valuable  work,  "Defence  of  the  Christian 
Faith,"  p.  251),  apjjears  to  regard  the  words  of 
Jesus  as  referring  equally  to  every  part  of  his 
life,  from  the  cradle  to  the  cross.  "Holy  is 
not  [here]  to  be  contrasted  with  impure,  but 
with  profane,  ordinary,  unconsecrated,  natu- 
ral. Jesus  sanctified  himself  by  offering  to 
God,  step  by  step,  all  the  elements  of  his 
being,  as  the^'  successively  unfolded  them- 
selves; all  the  faculties  of  his  body  and  of  his 
soul,  as  they  came  into  plaj^ ;  every  domain 
of  his  existence,  as  soon  as  he  set  his  foot  in 
it."  This  is  all  true;  but  it  is  at  the  same 
time  natural  to  suppose  that  the  consecration 
of  Jesus  for  and  in  that  supreme  event,  his 
propitiatory  death,  was  especially  in  his  mind. 
For  the  shadows  of  Gethsemane  were  already 
darkening  his  pathway  ;  and  his  words  at  this 
moment  would  forever  be  connected  in  the 
minds  of  his  disciples  with  the  scene  that  fol- 
lowed.    That  they  also  might  be  sancti- 


fied through  the  truth.  That  they  also 
themselves  may  be  sanctified  in  truth,  is  a 
more  exact  rendering  than  that  of  the  Com- 
mon Version.  The  purpose  for  which  Jesus 
consecrates  himself  to  his  last  and  crowning 
act  of  love  is  this,  that  "his  own"  may  be- 
come like  unto  himself,  consecrated  to  the 
holy  work  which  he  has  given  them  to  do. 
And  this  was  rendered  possible  by  his  self- 
consecration  in  their  behalf  Onlj'  thus  could 
they  be  united  to  him  as  a  perfect  Saviour,  be 
filled  with  his  spirit,  and  live  in  the  domain 
and  service  of  truth  instead  of  error.  Many 
interpreters  understand  in  truth  as  equivalent 
to  the  adverb  truly;  but  this  is  a  doubtful 
meaning  of  the  words. 

20-26.  Prayer  For  All  Believers  in 
His  Name. 

20.  Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone. 
The  expression  is  like  that  in  the  ninth  verse, 
and  maj',  therefore  be  translated  :  Yet  not  in 
respect  to  these  only  do  I  ask.  By  these,  is 
meant  the  apo.stolic  group,  standing  around 
him  in  silent  reverence,  and  listenins;  to  the 
words  which  he  poured  out,  with  filial  trust, 
into  the  Father's  ear.  But  for  them  also 
which  shall  believe  on  me  through  their 
word.  According  to  the  earliest  manuscripts 
and  versions,  the  word  believe  is  here  in  the 
present,  not  the  future  tense;  so  that  the 
clause  may  be  properly  translated  :  Bxt  in 
respect  to  them,  also  that  believe  on  me  throvgh 
their  tvoi'd.  Whether  the  present  is  used  as  a 
timeless  expression,  including  the  future,  or 
whether  all  who  are  to  believe  in  ages  to 
come  stand,  as  it  were,  in  spirit,  before  him, 
may  be  uncertain ;  but  several  things  are 
clear — e.  g.:  (1)  That  Jesus  does  not  limit  his 
asking  to  blessings  for  those  only  who  are 
listening  to  his  words,  and  who  may,  there- 
fore, be  helped  by  those  words;  but  he  prays 
for  the  absent  and  the  unborn,  and  thus  shows 
that  prayer  is  a  means  of  reaching  God,  and 
securing  a  blessing  from  him.  (2)  That  Jesus 
represents  himself  as  the  object  of  faith — on 
me.  And  believing  in  or  on  Christ  is  more 
than  giving  full  credit  to  the  truth  of  his 
words ;  it  is  accepting  him  as  Saviour,  honor- 


Ch.  XVIL] 


JOHN. 


347 


21  "That  they  all  may  be  one;  as  'thou,  Father, 
art  in  me,  and  I  iu  tliue,  that  they  also  may  be  one 
in  us:  that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent 
me. 

22  And  the  glory  which  thou  gavest  me  I  have 
given  them;  "that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are 
cue: 


21  me  through  their  word  ;  that  they  may  all  be  one  ; 
even  as  thou.  Father,  ar<  in  me,  and  1  in  thee,  that 

they  also  may  be  in  us :  that  the  world  may  believe 

22  that  thou   didst  send   me.      And  the  glory   which 
thou  hast  given  me  I  have  given  unto  them;   that 


ch.  10:  16;  ver.  11,  M,  2S ;  Eom.  12:  5;  Gal.  3:  28 i  ch.  10:  38;  14:  11 c  ch.  14:  20;  1  John  1:3;  3:2*. 


ing  him  as  Son  of  God,  and  drawing  from 
hiin  spiritual  life.  (3)  That  this  belief  is  to 
he  produced  by  means  of  the  apostles'  word. 
The  gospel  preached  by  them  is  to  be  tlie 
power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God  unto 
salvation. 

21.  That  they  all  may  be  one.  Of 
course,  one  in  character  and  spirit,  one  by 
virtue  of  a  common  faith,  a  mutual  love,  and 
a  tender  s^'mpathy.  Gill  remarks  that  a 
"unity  in  affection  may  be  here  designed — a 
being  knit  together  in  love  to  each  other, 
which  is  the  bond  of  perfectness,  the  evidence 
of  regeneration,  the  badge  of  the  Christian 
profession,  the  beauty  of  church  communion, 
and  the  barrier  and  security'  from  the  com- 
mon enemy."  But  even  more  than  this 
seems  to  be  intended,  namely — a  unity  like 
that  which  the  branches  have  with  one 
another  by  virtue  of  their  connection  with 
the  vine — a  unity  which  depends  as  much  upon 
the  indwelling  Spirit  as  it  does  upon  the  im- 
planted word.  For,  as  Lange  says:  "Unity 
in  the  one  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  the  same  in  all,, 
is  indeed  more  than  moral  unity."  (Comp. 
ICor.  6:  16,  19;  12:12,13;  Rom!  8:  9-11;  15: 
5,  6;  Eph.  2:  14-22.)  As  thou,  Father,  art 
in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may 
be  one  in  us.  According  to  the  judgment 
of  the  soundest  scholars,  one  should  be 
dropped  in  the  last  clause,  so  that  it  would 
read,  that  they  also  may  be  in  us.  But 
the  practical  end  of  this  unity,  as  respects  the 
world,  must  not  be  overlooked  in  judging  of 
its  character,  namely,  that  the  world  may 
believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me.  Rather: 
that  thou  didst  send  tne.  And  such  a  result 
presupposes  a  certain  degree  of  unity  in  the 
visible  life  of  Christians,  while  this  unity  of 
outward  life  must  spring  from  unity  of  in- 
ward life,  from  unity  of  conviction,  spirit, 
aim,  and  hope.  Hence,  a  perfect  agreement 
in  views  of  Christian  doctrine  and  duty, 
manifesting  itself  without  disturbance  in 
worship,  business,  and  social  life,  would  seem 
necessary,  in  order  to  a  perfect  visible  unity 


of  believers;  yet  less  than  this  will  convince 
the  world  that  Christians  are  in  Christ  and 
for  Christ ;  that  the  current  of  their  faith, 
hope,  and  love  is  bearing  them  all  in  the  same 
direction;  that  with  many  points  of  diversity, 
they  are  not  only  servants  of  the  same  Mas- 
ter, but  animated  by  the  same  hopes,  and 
seeking  the  same  end.  Divided  as  Protestant 
Christians  are  into  many  bands,  tiiey  are, 
nevertheless,  in  a  most  profound  and  novel 
sense,  one.  "This  unity,"  saj's  Alford,  "has 
its  true  and  only  ground  in  faith  in  Christ, 
through  the  word  of  God,  as  delivered  by  the 
apostles;  and  is,  therefore,  not  the  mere  out- 
ward uniformity,  nor  can  such  uniformity 
produce  it.  At  the  same  time,  its  effects  are 
to  be  real  and  visible,  such  that  the  world 
may  see  them." 

22.  And  the  glory  which  thou  gavest 
me  I  have  given  them.  According  to  the 
best  copies  (X  B  C  L,  etc.),  the  first,  as  well 
as  the  second  verb,  is  in  the  perfect  tense; 
hence,  the  Revised  Version  is  correct :  And  the 
glory  which  thou  hast  given  me  I  have  given 
unto  them.  The  pronoun  I  is  emphatic,  and 
signifies  "I  on  my  part,"  or,  "I in  turn."  But 
what  is  the  glory  here  spoken  of?  A  satis- 
factory answer  to  this  question  is  not  readily 
found.  Meyer,  and  others,  suppose  it  to  be 
the  heavenly  glory.  "This,  once  already 
possessed  by  him  before  the  incarnation,  the 
Father  has  given  to  him,  not  yet,  indeed,  ob- 
jectively, but  as  a  secure  possession  of  the 
immediate  future.  .  .  In  like  manner  has  he 
given  this,  his  glory,  in  which  the  eternal  life, 
ver.  2,  3,  is  consummated,  to  his  believing  ones 
(them),  who  will  enter  on  the  real  possession 
at  the  Parousia."  (Rom.  8:  so.)  But  the  words 
used,  have  given,  naturally  suggest  that  this 
glory  had  been  already  imparted  to  them,  so 
that  thej'  were  now  possessors  of  it,  to  some 
degree,  at  least. 

Weiss,  and  others,  assert  that  it  must  be  the 
power  of  working  miracles.  "In  behalf  of 
the  conversion  of  the  world,  he  has  given  to 
them  the  power  to  confirm  the  message  which 


348 


JOHK 


[Ch.  XVII. 


23  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  "that  they  may  be 
made  perfect  in  one;  and  that  the  world  may  know 
that  Iliou  hast  sent  me,  and  hast  loved  them,  as  thou 
Last  loved  me. 

24  *  Father,  I  will  that  they  also,  whom  thou  hast 
given  lue,  be  with  me  where  I  am ;  that  they  may 
behold  my  glory,  which  thou  hast  given  me;  "^for  thou 
lovedest  me  belore  the  loundalion  of  the  world. 


23  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one ;  I  in  them 
and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  he  perfected  into 
one ;  that  the  world  may  know  that  thou  didst  send 
me,   and   lovedst  them,   even   as   thou  lovedst   me. 

24  Father,  i  that  which  thou  hast  given  me,  I  desire 
that,  where  I  am,  they  also  may  be  with  me  ;  that 
they  may  heboid  my  glory,  which  thou  bast  given 
me:   for  thou  lovedst  me  before  the  foundation  of 


a  Col.  3:  14 6  ch.  12:  '^6;  U:  3;  1  Thess.  4:  17 ever. 


-1  Many  aucieat  authorities  read,  those  whom. 


they  bring  to  the  world  by  miracles  and  signs, 
as  he  did."  But  this  view  is  unsatisfactory, 
because  it  makes  them  mean  the  Eleven,  and 
nut  all  believers. 

Alford,  and  others,  hold  that  the  glory  here 
meant  is  that  of  Sonship  to  God.  "  The  glory 
is  .  .  .  the  glory  of  Christ  as  the  only  begot- 
ten Son  (ch.  1:14),  full  of  grace  and  truth  .  .  . 
which,  by  the  virtue  of  his  exaltation  and 
the  unity  of  all  believers  in  him  through  the 
Spirit,  has  become   (nut,  shall  be)  theirs  (kpi>. 

1:  18;.  2:6;  Rom.  8:30),   not   yet    full^',   UOr    US    it    is 

his;  but  as  each  can  receive  and  show  it 
forth."  And  Godet  remarks:  "The  end  of 
verse  23  guides  us  to  a  little  different  sense 
(from  one  that  he  had  been  explaining).  As 
the  essence  of  the  glory  of  Jesus  consists  in 
his  dignity  as  Son,  as  well-beloved  Son,  so  the 
glory  of  believers,  which  be  has  communi- 
cated to  them,  is  the  filial  dignity,  the  state  of 
adoption  (1  =  12)  by  which  they  have  become 
what  the  Son  is  eternally — children  of  God, 
objects  of  his  perfect  love."  But  Jesus 
speaks  of  a  glory  which  the  Father  has  given 
him.  If,  then,  it  is  the  glory  of  Sonship,  it 
is  that  of  his  Sonship  as  the  theanthropic 
Christ  Jesus,  rather  than  of  his  Sonship  as 
the  eternal  Word.  (Comp.  Luke  1 :  35.)  With 
this  explanation,  we  are  better  satisfied  with 
the  view  than  with  any  other.  That  they 
may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one.  See 
Notes  on  the  first  clause  of  verse  21.  This 
repetition  of  the  thought  is  deeply  impressive. 
The  Saviour  returns  to  it  again  and  again, 
showing  how  much  he  had  at  heart  the  unity 
of  his  followers. 

23.  [  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  that 
they  may  be  made  perfect  in  one.  Better: 
that  they  may  be  perfected  into  one;  that  is, 
"into  one  thing,"  though  in  what  respects 
one,  must  be  determined  by  the  nature  of  the 
case.  (See  under  verse  21.)  In  other  words, 
the  Saviour  has  given  them  the  glorj'  in  ques- 
tion with  a  view  to  making  them  perfect  by 
means  of  a  process  which  issues  in  spiritual 
oneness,  in  a  life  springing  from  himself,  and 


the  same  in  all.  Moreover,  the  words,  I  in 
them  and  thou  in  me,  do  not  begin  a  new 
sentence,  but  rather  intimate  by  the  wa3',  as 
it  were,  the  means  by  which  this  perfection 
into  one  must  be  accomplished.  Hence,  the 
meaning  would  be  expressed  by  saying:  "I 
being  in  them  and  thou  in  me,  that,"  etc. 
With  what  importunate  love  does  Jesus 
plead  for  this  unity  of  his  followers!  "See 
how  his  mouth  overflows  with  one  kind  of 
words." — Luther  in  Luthardt. 

Omitting  the  and,  which  did  not  belong  to 
the  original  text,  the  next  clause  corresponds 
with  the  last  part  of  verse  21 :  that  the  world 
may  know  that  '  thou  hast  sent  me. 
Rather:  didst  send  me.  But  here  there  is  an 
important  addition,  namel3' :  and  hast  lovtd 
them,  as  thou  hast  loved  me.  Better: 
lovedst  them  cen  as  thou  lovedst  me.  Thus 
the  love  of  the  Father  to  believers  in  Christ 
is  virtually  afiirmed  to  be  like  his  love  to 
Christ  himself,  And  the  prayer  of  Jesus  is, 
that  this  wonderful  love  maj^  be  made  known 
to  the  world  through  the  oneness  of  believers 
in  character  and  life — a  onene.*s  which  could 
only  spring  from  the  workings  of  divine  love 
in  their  hearts.     (Comp.  Rom.  5:  5.) 

24-26.  Final  Request,  That  His  Dis- 
ciples Be  Ultimately  Joixed  With  Him 
IN  Heaven — and  Reasons  Therefor. 

24.  Father,!  Avill  .  .  .  where  I  am. 
The  Revised  Version  (see  above)  follows  the 
Greek  more  closely  than  is  consistent  with 
the  best  English  style.  I  therefore  prefer 
the  translation  of  Alford  and  Davidson : 
Father,  I  will  that  it  hat  thou  hast  given  me, 
even  they  may  be  with  me  where  I  am.  For 
the  pronoun  ivhat,  must,  in  deference  to 
manuscript  evidence,  be  substituted  for  they 
whom,  especially  as  it  is  a  more  difficult 
reading,  and  as  a  transcriber  would  be  very 
likely  to  change  the  neuter  singular  to  the 
masculine  plural,  but  not  at  all  likely  to 
change  the  masculine  plural  to  a  neuter 
singular.  Yet  the  neuter  form  is  very  sig- 
nificant; for  it  represents  all  the  disciples  as  a 


Ch.  XVIL] 


JOHN. 


349 


25  O  righteous  Father,  "the  world  hath  not  known 
thee;  but  '  I  have  known  thee,  and  "these  have  known 
that  thou  hast  sent  nie. 

26  ''And  I  have  declared  unto  them  thy  name,  and 
will  declare  it;  that  the  love  "wherewith  thou  hast 
loved  me  may  be  iu  them,  and  I  in  them. 


25  the  world.  O  righteous  Father,  the  world  knew 
thee  not,  but  I  knew  thee;    and  these  knew  that 

26  thou  didst  seed  me;  and  I  made  known  unto  them 
thy  name,  and  will  make  it  known  ;  tluit  the  love 
wherewith  thou  lovedst  me  may  be  iu  them,  and  I 
in  them. 


ach.  15:  21;  16;  3....6ch.  7  :  29  :  8;  55  ;  10;  15..   .cch.  Ifi  :  27; 


r.6 ech.  15:9. 


single  body,  or  flock,  a  collective  whole;  and 
then  the  plural,  even  they,  recognizes  the 
same  body  as  made  up  of  individual  saints, 
whom  he  would  have  with  him  where  he 
should  be.  For  the  expression,  where  I  am, 
refers,  without  doubt,  to  his  place  in  glory. 
Hence,  though  he  leaves  his  disciples  for  a 
little  time  in  the  world,  to  carry  forward  his 
work,  he  asks  to  have  them  ultimately  with 
himself  in  heaven.  That  they  may  behold 
my  glory,  which  thou  hast  given  me.  The 
glory  referred  to  is  that  of  the  Incarnate  Son, 
and  not  that  of  the  divine  Logos.  Yet,  in  a 
very  important  sense  it  is  the  glory  which  the 
divine  Logos  had  with  the  Father,  before  the 
world  was.  (See  ver.  5,  and  comp.  1 :  1,  and 
Phil.  2:  6-9.)  For,  in  personal  union  with 
the  Word,  human  nature  is  now  to  be  exalted 
to  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  he  who  is  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  is  to  be  made  Head  over 
all  things  to  the  church.  (Eph.  1:22.)  To  be 
with  him,  and  to  behold  his  glory,  must,  then, 
be  the  highest  joy  of  believers.  (Comp.  Rev. 
5:  6-14;  22:  1-5.)  Paul  was  certain  of  this 
when  he  was  in  a  strait  betwixt  the  two,  hav- 
ing the  desire  to  depart,  that  he  might  be  with 
Christ,  which  would  be  for  him  very  far  bet- 
ter, but  knowing  that  to  abide  in  the  flesh 
was  more  neeedful  for  the  disciples  (Phii.  1:23); 
and  he  was  equally  certain  of  it  when  he 
wrote,  saying,  that  "our  light  affliction, 
which  is  but  for  a  moment,  worketh  for  us  a 
far  more  exceeding  and  eternal  weight  of 
glory."  (2Cor.4: 17.)  It  is  impossible  to  imagine 
just  what  will  be  the  nature  of  the  vision  of 
Christ,  but  it  will  surely  be  a  source  of  un- 
speakable delight;  and,  while  giving  such 
delight,  it  will  also  transform  his  disciples 
more  and  more  into  his  own  likeness,  and  im- 
part to  them  some  of  his  glory.  (1  John  3:  2,  and 
Eom.  8:17;  2  Tim.  2:  11,12.)      FoF  thoU    lOVedst    me 

before  the  foundation  of  the  world.    The 

glory  of  the  exalted  Jesus  is,  therefore,  the 
gift  of  eternal  love.  For,  Jesus  who  is  now 
about  to  be  glorified  as  the  God-man,  is  con- 
sc'ous  of  having  enjoyed  the  Father's  love, 
before  the  world  was.     It  is  possible,  more- 


over, though  not  certain,  that  he  intends  to 
represent  that  love  as  resting  upon  him,  in 
view  of  his  foreseen  incarnation  and  death, 
for  the  redemption  of  man.  For  the  whole 
work  of  redemption  was  embraced  in  the 
holy  purpose  of  the  triune  God,  that  ante- 
dated the  first  act  of  creation.  The  words  of 
this  passage  naturally  suggest  a  covenant  of 
redemption  between  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

25.  O  righteous  Father.  It  is  commonly 
supposed  that  the  expression,  I  will,  in  verse 
24,  signifies  more  than  simple  desire;  that  it 
presents  a  rightful  claim  (comp.  ]\Iark6:  25j; 
and,  if  this  is  a  correct  view,  that  expression 
is  in  special  harmony  with  the  plea  involved 
in  the  epithet  righteous,  here  employed. 
But,  this  epithet  is  also  perfectly  suited  to 
what  follows,  which  refers  to  the  sinful  ig- 
norance of  the  world  and  to  the  fidelity  of 
Jesus,  together  with  his  disciples.  The 
world  hath  not  known  thee,  etc.  The 
Revised  Version  is  an  improvement  on  the 
Common  Version,  thus :  The  world  knew  thee 
not,  but  I  knew  thee;  and  these  kneiv  that 
thou  didst  send  me.  The  conjunction  and, 
precedes  the  world,  in  the  original,  but  can- 
not be  represented  properly  in  English.  Ac- 
cording to  Westcott,  "  it  serves  to  co-ordinato 
the  two  main  clauses,  which  bring  out  the 
contrast  between  the  world  and  the  disciples. 
The  force  of  it  is  as  if  we  were  to  say :  Two 
facts  are  equally  true;  it  is  true  that  the 
world  knew  thee  not;  it  is  true  that  these 
knew  that  thou  didst  send  me"  And  yet, 
would  be  the  best  rendering,  if  the  word  (icai) 
is  reproduced  at  all. 

26.  And  I  have  declared  unto  them 
thy  name.  More  exactly :  And  I  made 
knotvn  unto  them  thy  7iame.  As  if  he  had 
given  them,  in  the  past,  a  knowledge  of  the 
Father;  which  was,  indeed,  true;  for  nothing 
could  well  be  clearer  than  the  revelation 
which  he  had  made  of  the  character  and  will 
of  God.  Yet  this  was  a  work  that  must  be 
continued,  directly  or  indirectly,  until  the 
end  of  time;  and,  therefore,  he  adds  the  as- 
surance :  and  will   declare  it,  or,  tnake  it 


350 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVIII. 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 


TT7"HEN  Jesus  had  spoken  these  words, «  he  went  forth 
VV  with  his  disciples  over  'the  brook  Cedron,  where 
was  a  garden,  into  the  which  he  entered,  and  his  disci- 
ples. 


1  When  Jesus  had  spoken  these  words,  he  went 
forth  with  his  disciples  over  the  i  brook  ^Kldron, 
where  was  a  garden,  into  the  which  he  entered, 


a  Matt.  26:  36;  Mark  U:32;  Luke  22  :  39 62  Sam.  15:  23. 1  Or,  ravine.     Gr.  winter-torrent 2  Or,  oftheeeda 


known.  That  is,  probably,  through  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  (if  the  pro- 
noun them  embraces  all  future  converts  to 
the  truth),  through  the  subordinate  agency  of 
the  apostles  and  of  all  other  Christian  teach- 
ers. This  revelation  of  the  Father  is  finally 
said  to  have  its  end  or  purpose  in  this:  that 
the  love  wherewith  thou  hast  loved  me 
may  be  in  them,  and  I  in  them.  In  other 
words,  that  the  love  which  tlie  Father  has  to 
the  Son  may  be  shed  abroad  in  their  hearts, 
or  experienced  by  them,  as  a  fountain  of  joy, 
and  purity,  and  strength.  Going  from  them, 
he  would  still  be  with  them  and  in  them. 

Such  is  the  prayer  which  Jesus  is  said  to 
have  offered,  in  the  evening  after  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Holy  Supper — a  prayer  of  match- 
less dignity,  simplicity,  depth,  and  love.  The 
words  of  Luther  respecting  it,  have  been 
often  quoted:  "So  plainly  and  simply  it 
.sounds,  so  deep  and  rich  and  wide  it  is,  that 
none  can  fathom  it" — (taken  from  Meyer). 
Yet,  several  objections  have  been  pressed 
against  its  genuineness,  and  two  or  three  of 
them  deserve  notice.  (1)  It  is  said  to  be  in- 
credible that  John  could  have  remembered 
the  words  of  so  long  a  prayer  through  so 
many  years.  What  he  has  given,  must, 
tlierefore,  be  at  best  the  fruit  of  his  own 
meditation  on  a  prayer  mostly  forgotten. 
This  objection  is  certainly  plausible,  but  be- 
fore accepting  it  as  conclusive,  it  will  be  wise 
to  consider,  (a)  That  the  "Spirit  of  truth" 
had  been  promised  to  the  Eleven  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  enabling  them  to  recall  the 
words  of  their  Lord,  (b)  That  such  words  as 
are  found  in  this  prayer  would  sink  down 
into  the  mind  and  heart  of  "the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved"  with  peculiar  sweetness 
and  power;  (c)  That  the  order  of  thought  in 
the  prayer  is  extremely  natural  and  logical, 
while  the  different  words  to  be  remembered 
are  not  numerous;  (d)  That  the  whole  prayer 
is  singularly  adapted  to  the  occasion,  as  well 
as  singularly  rich  and  spiritual  :  forbidding 
the  assumption  that  it  was  not  believed  to  be 
genuine    by  the   Evangelist;    and   (e)    that, 


even  when  the  style  of  a  translation  reminds 
one  of  that  of  the  translator,  the  record  may 
be  trustworthy,  giving  correctly  the  thoughts 
of  the  original. 

(2)  It  is  said  that  the  tone  of  this  prayer  is 
inconsistent  with  the  dreadful  sorrow  which 
soon  after  filled  the  soul  of  Jesus,  and  found 
utterance  in  the  cry,  "If  it  be  possible,  let 
this  cup  pass  from  me."  (Matt. 26:39.)  Such 
alternations  of  joy  and  sorrow  are  held  to 
be  incredible  in  the  case  of  Jesus.  But  to 
this  it  may  be  replied,  (a)  that  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  was  like  that  of  other  men, 
sinfulness  excepted.  Accordingly  it  is  said 
of  him  at  one  time,  that  he  rejoiced  in  spirit, 
and  at  another  time,  that  he  groaned  in  spirit. 
And  why  should  not  one  who  was  capable  of 
joy  and  of  grief,  be  susceptible,  at  times,  of 
sudden  alternations  of  feeling?  (b)  That  the 
adversary  of  all  good  appears  to  have  renewed 
his  assaults  in  the  garden,  bringing  on  a  sud- 
den revulsion  of  feeling.  Having  tempted 
the  Lord  in  the  wilderness,  without  success, 
he  had  departed  from  him  for  a  season  (Luke 
*:  13);  but  there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  he 
repeated  his  attacks  when  Jesus  entered  the 
garden,  soon  after  this  prayer  (see  14:  31; 
comp.  13:  2,  27),  perhaps  in  a  very  different 
and  more  terrible  form.  That  John  does  not 
refer  to  the  agony  of  Jesus  may  be  accounted 
for  by  the  purpose  of  his  Gospel,  which  al- 
lowed him  to  omit  many  things  that  were 
were  well  known  to  Christians  by  other  testi- 
monj'. 

Chap.  18 :  1-11.  The  Arrest  of  Jestjs 
Through  the  Treachery  of  Judas. 
(Parallel  passages,  Matt.  26:  30,  47-56;  Mark 
14:  26,  43-52;  Luke  22:  47-53.) 

1.  When  Jesus  had  spoken  these  words. 
That  is,  the  words  of  his  praj'er,  and,  more 
generally,  of  chapters  14-16.  He  went 
forth  Avith  his  disciples  over  the  brook 
Cedron.  The  expression,  went  forth  (e'f^Aee), 
naturally  presupposes  a  definite  place,  like  the 
city,  or  the  upper  room— from  which  he  went 
out;  and  as  there  is  no  conclusive  argument 


Ch.  XVIIL] 


JOHN. 


351 


against  the  view  tliat  the  oommunications  of 
Christ  to  his  disciples,  recorded  in  chapters  15, 
16,  and  his  prayer,  preserved  in  chapter  17, 
were  made  in  the  outer  court  of  tlie  temple, 
we  may  fix  upon  this  as  the  probable  point 
of  departure.  The  word  rendered  brook, 
signifies  a  "winter  torrent,"  and  properly 
characterizes  the  Kidron,  which  is  thus  de- 
scribed by  Dr.  Robinson  ("Researches,"  I.  p. 
273):  "The  channel  of  the  valley  of  Je- 
hoshaphat,  the  brook  Kidron  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, is  nothing  more  than  the  dry  bed  of  a 
wintry  torrent,  bearing  marks  of  being  occa- 
sionally swept  over  by  a  large  volume  of 
water.  No  stream  flows  here  now,  except 
during  the  heav3'^  rains  of  winter,  when  the 
waters  descend  into  it  from  the  neighboring 
hills.  .  .  .  Like  the  wadys  of  the  desert,  the 
valley  probably  served  of  old,  as  now,  only 
to  drain  off  the  waters  of  the  rainy  season." 
The  reader  will  certainly  be  pleased  to  trace 
as  accurately  as  possible  the  way  that  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  little  company  which  now  left 
the  city  by  the  gate  of  St.  Steplien,  as  we 
suppose.  "  A  path  winds  down  from  the  gate 
on  a  course  southeast  by  east,  and  crosses  the 
water-bed  of  the  valley  by  a  bridge;  beyond 
which  are  the  church  with  the  tomb  of  the 
Virgin,  Gethsemane,  and  other  plantations  of 
olive  trees.  .  .  Tlie  path  and  bridge  are  on  a 
causeway,  or  rather,  terrace,  built  up  across 
the  valley,  perpendicular  on  the  south  side; 
the  earth  being  filled  in  on  the  northern  side 
up  to  the  level  of  the  bridge.  The  bridge 
itself  consists  of  an  arch,  open  on  the  south 
side,  and  seventeen  feet  high  from  the  bed  of 
the  channel  below ;  but  the  north  side  is 
built  up,  with  two  subterranean  drains  enter- 
ing it  from  above;  one  of  which  comes  from 
the  sunken  court  of  the  Virgin's  tomb,  and 
the  other  from  the  fields  further  in  the  north- 
west. The  breadth  of  the  valley  at  this 
point,  will  appear  from  the  measurements 
which  I  took  from  St.  Stephen's  gate  to  Geth- 
semane, along  the  path,  viz. :  (1)  From  St. 
Stephen's  gate  to  the  brow  of  the  descent, 
level,  135  English  feet;  (2)  [to]  bottom  of  the 
slope,  the  angle  of  descent  being  16i°,  415 
feet;  (3)  [across]  bridge,  level,  140  feet;  (4) 
[to]  northwest  corner  of  Gethsemane,  slight 
rise,  145  feet;  (5)  [to]  northeast  corner  of  the 
same,  150.  The  last  three  numbers  give  the 
breadth  of  the  proper  bottom  of  the  valley  at 


this  spot,  viz. :  435  feet,  or  145  yards."  (Rob- 
inson's "Researches,"  etc.,  I.  p,  270  sq. )l 
Where  was  a  garden,  into  the  which  he 
entered,  and  his  disciples.  Better,  as  in 
the  Revised  Version:  hitnself  and  his  dis- 
ciples. John  simply  afBrins  that  this  garden, 
or  orchard,  was  beyond  the  Kidron,  as  one 
goes  from  the  city.  Luke  (2i;3»)  shows  that 
in  going  to  it,  Jesus  went  to  the  Mount  of 
Olives.  But  neither  of  them  informs  us 
whether  it  was  at  the  foot,  or  on  the  side,  or 
on  the  summit,  of  this  mount.  The  small 
farm  to  which  the  orchard  belonged,  or,  per- 
haps, the  orchard  itself,  is  called  Gethsemane, 

[1  We  cannot  think  the  Greek  should  here  read  riav 
KiSpmv,  as  in  Tex.  Rec.  and  W.  &  H.,  hut  rather,  toO 
KcSpwi'.  The  former  is  supported  by  N  (third  corrector) 
B  C  L  X,  ten  other  uncials,  and  most  cursives,  and  sev- 
eral Fathers;  but  7io  ancient  version  translates  "of  the 
cedars."  It  is  also  found  in  the  Septuagint  of  2  Sam.  15 : 
23  (twice);  1  Kings  2:  37;  15:  13,  /.  e. — the  article  riov 
is  inserted  by  some  manuscripts,  in  two  cases  by  B.  and 
two  by  A.,  while  omitted  by  others.  (See  Hort.)  The 
other,  Tou  KeSpiui/  is  read  by  A  S  A,  123,  several  import- 
ant copies  of  the  Old  Latin,  the  Vulgate,  Gothic,  Arme- 
nian (apparently),  and  some  Latin  Fathers;  while  too 
KeSpov  is  given  by  N  (first  hand)  D,  some  copies  of  the 
Old  Latin,  the  Memphitic,  Thebaic,  ^thiopic.  And 
Josephus  (see  Grimm,  s.  v.)  three  times  uses  the  geni- 
tive KeSpMi/os,  showing  a  nomative  KeSpuJi/,  and  once 
has  the  nomative  KeSpcuf  itself.  The  word  is  Hebrew, 
Kidron  (see  the  Old  Testament  passages),  and  there  is 
a  familiar  Greek  word  KeSpo<;,  cedar.  Now  how  easily 
would  scribes  unacquainted  with  Hebrew  suppose  that 
the  ravine  toO  KiSpiov  was  a  mistake  for  either  riov 
KeSpuiv,  '-of  the  cedars,"  or,  tou  Ke&pov,  "of  the  cedar" 
(the  Greek  word  being  apparently  sometimes  masculine, 
see  L.  and  S.)  Thus  the  reading  tou  KcSpoir,  accounts 
for  both  the  others,  and  answers  to  the  Hebrew 
form,  which  is  commonly  understood  to  mean  dirty, 
turbid,  said  of  a  torrent.  And  the  introduction  of  riov 
by  some  MSS.  in  some  passages  of  the  Septuagint  would 
be  explained  in  the  same  way  ;  it  is  not  said  to  appear  at 
all  in  2  Kings  23:  4,  6;  Jer.  31  :  40.  Dr.  Hort  thinks  it 
likely  that  the  Greek  word  <cc6pos,  cedar,  was  of  Phe- 
nician  origin,  and  perhaps  from  the  same  root  as  the 
Hebrew  kidron,  meaning  "  dark,"  said  of  the  tree,  and 
that  so  the  ravine  Kidron,  meant  "  ravine  of  the 
cedars,"  being  so  called  frem  possible  surviving  clumps 
of  that  tree.  But  the  theory  will  suppose  that  the 
Evangelist  knew  this  to  be  the  etymology  of  Kidron, 
and  gave  twi-  KeSpmv,  as  a  translation  ;  and  it  would  then 
be  surprising  that  Josephus  did  not  know  it.  The 
*<rore<7  transcriptional  probability,  and  the,  at  least,  tacit 
support  of  all  the  early  versions,  require  us  to  follow 
NAD,  etc.,  rather  than  B  C  L,  etc.,  the  later  group  here 
giving  a  correction  of  the  "  Alexandrian  "  sort. — B.] 


352 


JOHK 


[Ch.  XVIII. 


2  And  Judas  also,  which  betrayed  him,  knew  the 
place :  "  for  Jesus  ofttiiues  resorted  thither  with  his 
disciples. 

3  'Judas  then,  having  received  a  band  of  men  and 
otiicers  from  the  chief  priests  and  Pliarisees,  comelh 
thither  with  lanterns  and  torches  and  weapons. 


2  himself  and  hin  disciples.  Now  Judas  also,  who 
betrayed  him,  knew  the  place;  for  Jesus  ott-times 

3  resoried  thither  with  his  disciples.  Judas  then, 
haviug  received  the  i  band  of  soldiers,  and  officers 
from  the  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees,  cometh 
thither  with  lanterns  and  torches   and   weapons. 


;  Luke  21 :  37  ;  22  ;  30 6  SUui.  26 :  47  ;  Mark  U  :  43  ;  Luke  22  :  47  ;  Aet3  1 :  16. 1  Or,  cohort. 


i.   e.  —  "Oil-press"    (Matt.  26:36;  Mark  U.-Vi),  doubt- 

less  because  there  was,  some  time,  suc-li  a  press 
connected  with  it.  Speaking  of  the  tradi- 
tional site  of  this  garden,  Dr.  Hackett  says : 
"The original  garden  may  have  been  more  or 
less  extensive  than  the  present  site,  or  have 
stood  a  few  hundred  rods  furtlier  to  the  north 
or  the  south ;  but  far,  certainly,  from  that 
spot  it  need  not  be  supposed  to  have  been. 
We  may  sit  down  there  and  read  the  narra- 
tive of  what  the  Saviour  endured  for  our  re- 
demption, and  feel  assured  that  we  are  near 
the  place  where  he  prayed,  saying,  '  Father, 
not  my  will,  but  thine  be  done,'  and  where, 
'being  in  an  agony,  he  sweat,  as  it  were,  great 
drops  of  blood,  falling  down  to  the  ground.' 
It  is  altogether  probable  that  the  disciples,  in 
going  back  to  Jerusalem  from  Bethany,  after 
having  seen  the  Lord  taken  up  into  heaven, 
passed  Getbsemane  on  the  waj'.  What  new 
thoughts  must  have  arisen  in  their  mind.*, 
what  deeper  insight  into  the  mystery  of  the 
agony  must  have  flashed  upon  them,  as  they 
looked  once  more  upon  that  scene  of  the  suf- 
ferings and  humiliation  of  the  crucified  and 
ascendedOne."  (Smith's  "Diet,  of  the  Bible," 
p.  908. ) 

Passing  over,  without  notice,  the  agony  of 
Jesus  and  his  threefold  prayer,  which  are  so 
fully  described  in  the  S3'noptical  Gospels  ("see 
Matt.  2f):  36-46;  Mark  14:  32-?.9 ;  Luke  22: 
40-46),  John  now  relates  the  principal  circum- 
stances of  his  apprehension,  showing  that  he 
permitted  himself  to  be  taken  and  led  away 
to  judgment.  Doubtless  the  Evangelist  was 
convinced  that  no  Christian  would  forget. 
when  reading  this  record,  the  momentous  and 
tragic  scene  in  the  garden,  with  which  he 
w»s  familiar  in  the  well  known  writings  of 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke.  And  if  anything 
might  safely  be  omitted,  it  would  certainly 
be  a  scene  which  had  been  so  deeply  im- 
printed on  the  hearts  of  all  who  knew  the 
Gospel.  In  the  account  which  follows,  he 
mentions  several  particulars  not  found  in  the 
earlier  Gospels. 

2.  And    Judas    also,    which    betrayed 


him,  knew  the  place.  The  meaning  may 
be  more  exactly  given  as  follows:  Now  (Se) 
Judas  also,  who  was  betraying  him,  knew  the 
place.  For  the  present  participle  used  as  an 
imperfect  with  the  article  (6  napa.&i&ov';),  describes 
Judas  as  one  who  was  then  engaged  in  the 
work  of  delivering  Jesus  over  into  the  hands 
of  his  foes,  and  not  as  one  whom  the  Evan- 
gelist remembers  and  characterizes  as  the 
man  who  once  perpetrated  this  crime.  In 
other  words,  Judas  is  set  before  us,  graphi- 
cally, after  the  manner  of  John,  as  one  who 
was  then  carrying  into  eflTect  his  treacherous 
plan.  (See  N(;te  on  13:  11).  And  the  cir- 
cumstance that  Judas  knew  the  place  proves 
that  Jesus  did  not  go  there  with  his  disciples 
for  the  purpose  of  concealment  from  his 
enemies.  If  there  can  be  any  doubt  about 
this,  it  must  disappear  before  the  next  state- 
ment: for  Jesus  ofttimes  resorted  thither 
with  his  disciples.  Judas  knew  the  place, 
because  it  was  one  where  Jesus  had  often  met 
with  his  disciples.  Such  a  jilace  would  not 
have  been  selected  by  the  Lord,  if  he  had 
wished  to  elude  the  search  of  foes,  that 
were  to  be  led  on,  as  he  knew,  by  one  of  his 
own  followers.  For  how  long  a  time,  or  for 
what  sufficient  reasons,  Jesus  had  been  ac- 
customed to  meet  with  his  disciples  in  this 
garden,  is  nowhere  stated.  Yet  some  of  those 
visits  to  the  place  were  probably  made  before 
the  present  passover,  and  the  owner  of  the 
estate  was,  doubtless,  friendh'  to  him.  It 
was  evidently  a  quiet,  retired  spot,  where  he 
could  commune  with  "his  own,"  and  seek 
the  blessing  of  his  Father. 

3.  Judas  then,  having  received  a  band 
of  men.  Mi>re  exactly :  having  received  the 
band — i.  e.,  the  cohort  of  Roman  soldiers,  sta- 
tioned as  a  garrison  in  Antonia.  (See  Matt. 
27:27;  Mark  15:  16;  Acts  21 :  31  sq. ;  Joseph.' 
"Ant."  21:4,3;  'B.  J.:5,  8.)  The  Greek 
term  here  used  (o-n-eipa),  properly  denotes  a 
"cohort,"  numbering  600  soldiers,  though  it 
is  used  bj'  Polybius  to  denote  a  manipulus, 
numbering  about  200.  The  band,  or  cohort, 
was  probably,  in  this  case,  represented  by  a 


Ch.  XVIIL] 


JOHN. 


353 


4  Jesus  therefore,  knowing  all  things  that  should 
come  upon  him,  went  forth,  and  said  unto  them,  Whom 
seek  ye? 


4  Jesus  therefore,  knowing  all  the  things  that  were 
coming    upon    him,    went    forth,  and    sailh    unto 


detachment,  led  by  their  commander.  And 
officers  from  the  chief  priests  and  Phari- 
sees. Better:  the  Pharisees,  since  important 
manuscripts  have  the  definite  article  before 
the  word  Pharisees,  as  well  as  before  the 
word  chief  priests.  Some  of  these  officers 
from  tlie  chief  priests,  who  were  at  the  head 
of  the  Sadducean  party,  and  from  the  Phari- 
sees, who  were  powerful  in  religious  altairs, 
may  have  been  sent  once  before  on  a  similar 
errand.  (7:46.)  Observe  that  Gentiles  and  Jews 
were  united  in  this  movement  against  Christ. 
Observe,  also,  that  both  wings  of  the  religious 
army,  the  rationalistic  and  the  ritualistic, 
joined  hands  in  the  effort  to  destroy  Jesus. 
Cometh  thither  with  lanterns  and  torches 
and  weapons.  Better:  loith  torches  and 
lamps  and  weapons.  As  the  moon  was  full 
at  this  time,  it  has  been  supposed  that  no 
oilier  light  could  have  been  necessary.  But, 
not  to  insist  on  the  remark  of  John,  that  it 
w:n  "night,'' — i.e.,  dark,  when  Judas  went 
out  of  the  upper  room  (i3:  so),  because  that 
was  an  earlier  hour  of  the  night,  nor  to  insist 
that  the  light  of  the  moon  is  sometimes  ob- 
scured by  clouds,  it  is  obvious  that  torches 
an  i  lamps  may  have  been  taken  with  a  view 
to  the  possible  necessity  of  exploring  shady 
recesses  or  rock-caverns  and  tombs,  where  the 
supposed  fugitive  might  have  concealed  him- 
self. 

Tlie  other  Evangelists  do  not  mention  the 
Roman  cohort,  which  may  have  been  present 
as  a  reserve,  in  case  of  need,  and  may,  there- 
fore, have  taken  no  active  part  at  the  outset 
in  seizing  Jesus,  and  leading  him  away;  but 
they  speak  of  the  people  who  went  out  after 
Jesus  as  a  "  great  multitude"  (Matt,  and 
Mark),  or  as  "a  multitude"  (Luke),  and  they 
specify  "swords  and  staves"  (or,  "clubs"), 
as  the  weapons  which  they  bore. 

4.  Jesus  therefore.  Therefore — i.e.,  in 
consideration  of  the  approach,  or  arrival  of, 
this  hostile  company.  For  the  multitude 
must  have  been  already  near  the  entrance  to 
the  garden.  Knowing  all  things  that 
should  come  upon  him.  More  exactlj' :  AU 
the  things  coming  Kjion  him.  The  things,  are 
represented  as  already  coming  upon  him, 
although  they  were  mostly  in  the-  immediate 


future,  and  had  not  yet  reached  him  in  the 
way  of  physical  violence.  This  testimony  to 
the  perfect  foreknowledge  of  Jesus  is  in  deep- 
est harmony  with  the  wiioie  tenor  of  our  Gos- 
pel. Went  forth ;  either  from  the  garden, 
as  an  enclosed  space,  or  from  a  secluded  spot 
in  the  garden;  possibly,  even,  from  the  group 
of  disciples.  This  act  of  coming  forth,  is 
naturally  to  be  placed  directly  after  the  say- 
ing: "Arise,  let  us  be  going:  lo,  he  is  at 
hand  that  betrayeth  me."  (Maw.  m:  «;  Mark  u:  «.) 
"While  they  pause,  perchance,  and  stand 
consulting  how  they  may  best  provide  against 
any  possibility  of  escape,  he  whom  they  were 
seeking,  with  all  the  holy  calm  of  pres- 
cience, comes  forth  from  the  enclosure,  and 
stands  face  to  face  with  the  apostate  and  his 
company." — EUicott.  The  suggestion  of 
Hackett  would  require  us  to  suppose  that  a 
period  of  perhaps  ten  or  fifteen  minutes 
elapsed  between  the  summons:  "  Arise,  let  us 
be  going,"  etc.,  and  the  simultaneous  arrival 
of  Judas,  with  his  company,  and  of  Jesus 
with  his  disciples,  near  the  entrance  to  the 
garden,  where  they  encountered  each  other. 
"As  I  sat  beneath  the  olives,  and  observed 
how  very  near  the  city  was,  with  what  perfect 
ease  a  person  there  could  survey,  at  a  glance, 
the  entire  length  of  the  eastern  wall,  and  the 
slope  of  the  hill  towards  the  valley,  I  could 
not  divest  myself  of  the  impression  that  this 
local  peculiarity  should  be  allowed  to  explain 
a  passage  in  the  account  of  the  Saviour's  ap- 
prehension. Every  one  must  have  noticed 
something  abrupt  in  his  summons  to  his  dis- 
ciples—  'Arise,  let  us  be  going:,  see,  he  is  at 
hand  that  doeth  betray  me.'  (Mau.26:46.)  It  is 
not  improbable  that  his  watchful  eye,  at  that 
moment,  caught  sight  of  Judas  and  his  ac- 
complices, as  they  issued  from  one  of  the 
eastern  gates,  or  turned  round  the  northern 
or  southern  cornerof  the  walls,  in  order  to  de- 
scend into  the  valley." — ("  Illus."  p.  257.) 

It  is  difficult  to  fix  the  precise  order  of  the 
events  wbich,  are  mentioned  by  the  different 
Evangelists,  in  connection  with  the  arrest  of 
Jesus.  But  it  seems  probable  that  Judas, 
seeing  the  Lord,  left  the  multitude  a  little  be- 
hind, and  approaching  Jesus,  saluted  him 
with;  ai  traitorous  kiss;    that    Jesus  siud,  in 


354 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVIII. 


5  They  answered  him,  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Jesus  saith 
unto  theiu,  I  am  he.  And  Judas  also,  which  betrayed 
him,  stood  with  them. 

6  As  soon  then  as  he  had  said  unto  them,  I  am  he, 
they  went  backward,  and  fell  to  the  ground. 

7  Th(n  asked  he  them  again,  Whom  seek  ye?  And 
they  said,  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 


0  them,  Whom  seek  ye?  They  answered  him, 
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  I 
am     he.       And    Judas    also,    who    betrayed    him, 

6  was  standing  with  them.  When  therefore  he 
said   unto   them,    I    am    he,   they    went    backward, 

7  and  fell  to  the  ground.  Again  therefore  he 
asked  them,  Whom  seek  ye?   And  they  said,  Jesus 


response  to  this  cruel  and  hypocritical  act : 
"Friend,  wherefore  art  thou  come?"  (M;iu.  26:5o.) 
"  Betrayest  thou  the  Son  of  man  with  a  kiss?" 
(Luke 22: 48);  and  that,  awed  by  the  tone  and 
look  of  Christ,  he  drew  quickly  back  and 
^tood  with  his  own  company.  Jesus  then, 
advancing  before  his  disciples,  may  have 
asked  the  question  preserved  by  Jolin.  Ob- 
serve the  change  to  the  present  tense  in  the 
verb  ("saith'')  according  to  the  best  text. 
And  said  (saith)  unto  them.  Whom  seek 
ye?  This  question  was  probably  asked  for 
the  purpose  of  shielding  his  disciples,  by 
drawing  the  attention  of  all  upon  himself; 
but  there  is  no  reason  to  imagine  anything 
very  unusual  or  authoritative  in  the  manner 
of  Jesus.  This  may  be  inferred  from  the 
answer  which  he  received. 

5.  .  .  .  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Pre.sumably 
with  a  tone  which  would  be  suggested,  in 
some  degree,  to  an  English  reader,  by  the 
literal  translation:  Jesus  the  Nazarene. 
(Comp.  19:  19;  Matt.  26:  71.)  This  quality 
of  the  answer  is  probable,  in  view  of  what 
follows,  and  of  the  known  temper  of  the 
Jewish  leaders,  provided  there  was  nothing 
extraordinary  in  the  manner  with  whicli 
Jesus  proposed  the  question,  nothing  which 
inspired  awe  in  the  minds  of  those  who  re- 
plied to  it.  But  if,  as  we  believe,  there  was  a 
certain  tone  of  assurance,  and  even  contempt, 
in  the  answer  of  those  priest-sent  constable-s 
who,  with  Judas,  headed  the  company — 
(there  being  nothing  to  prevent  this  in  the 
question  of  Jesus,  nothing  but  the  self-poise 
and  serenity  which  bespeak  a  soul  at  peace 
with  God  and  itself,  and  which  might  scarcely 
be  noticed'  by  a  crowd  of  men  who  knew  not 
the  speaker) — the  relation  of  the  parties  was 
instantly  reversed  by  the  next  utterance  of 
the  Lord.  For  it  was  an  utterance  which,  for 
the  moment,  proved  him  Lord.  I  am  he  ! 
(Comp.  6:  20;  8:  24,  28,  58;  13:  19.)  This 
brief  avowal  must  have  been  made  in  a  tone 
of  moral  dignity  and  assurance  which  none 
but  Jesus  could  use.  But  before  describing 
its  effect  upon  those  addressed,  the  Evangelist 
interjects  a  remark  which  serves  to  heighten 


our  interest  in  the  scene,  and,  perhaps,  to 
render  it  more  intelligible.  And  Judas 
also,  Avhich  betrayed  him,  stood  Avith 
them.  In  this  case,  again,  Judas  is  described 
as  engaged  in  the  awful  business  of  betraying 
the  Lord  Jesus;  for  the  relative  clause  signi- 
fies properly,  who  was  betraying  him.  So, 
too,  the  sense  of  the  last  clause  would  be  rep- 
resented more  clearly  by  the  expression,  was 
standing  with  them. 

6.  As  soon,  etc.  The  Eevised  Version  is 
better  :  When  therefore  he  snid  unto  them,  I 
am  he,  they  ivent  backward  and  fell  to  the 
groimd.  The  effect  was  immediate,  as  well  as 
powerful.  It  is,  of  course,  impossible  for 
any  one  to  be  certain  as  to  all  the  causes  of 
the  consternation  which  fell  suddenly  upon 
this  crowd  of  armed  men.  Judas  may  have 
spoken  with  some  of  them,  as  they  were  com- 
ing from  the  city,  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus, 
and  maj'  thus  have  unintentionalh'  prepared 
them  to  shrink  with  terror  from  his  word  of 
power.  Or,  Judas  may  have  been  himself 
overcome  with  fear  at  a  tone  of  his  Master's 
voice  wliich  he  recognized  as  the  tone  of  di- 
vine authority,  and  liis  sudden  fear  ma3'  have 
communicated  itself  toothers.  At  all  events, 
the  words  of  Jesus,  enforced  by  his  bearing 
and  tone,  in  connection  with  the  circum- 
stances of  the  hour,  filled  the  hearts  of  Judas 
and  his  accomplices  with  irresistible  conster- 
nation, so  that  those  in  front  pressed  suddenly 
back,  and  many  fell  to  the  ground.  And  this 
effect  was  intended  by  the  Lord.  He  would 
have  his  assailants  understand  that  only  by 
his  free  consent  could  they  accomplish  their 
purpose.  (Comp.  Matt.  26:  53.)  This  was  a 
remarkable  scene,  which,  as  we  can  easily 
believe,  John  could  never  forget.  It  was, 
also,  one  of  the  incidents  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
which  would  contribute  to  the  xQvy  end  for 
which  his  Gospel  was  written.   (20:3i.) 

7.  Then  asked  he  them  a§:ain.  The 
word  translated  then,  means,  generally,  and 
in  this  place  certainly,  therefore,  and  the  pre- 
cise effect  of  the  Greek  expression  is  given  in 
the  Kevised  Version:  Again  therefore  he 
asked  them.     The  object  of  Jesus  was  not  to 


Ch.  XVIIL] 


JOHN. 


355 


8  Jesus  answered,  I  have  tuld  you  that  I  am  he :  if 
thuret'ore  ye  seek  me,  let  these  go  their  way: 

y  That  the  saying  iiiiglit  be  tultilleil,  which  he  spake, 
«Of  them  which  thou  gavest  me  have  I  lost  none. 


8  of  Nazareth.     Jesus  answered,  I  told  you  that  I 
am    he :    it    therefore    ye    seek    me,    let    these    go 

9  their     way:     that    the     word    might    be     fultilled 
which   he   spake,  Of  those   whom  thou   hast  given 


save  himself  from  the  hands  of  his  enemies, 
but  to  save  his  disciples.  But  the  tone  of  the 
first  answer  to  his  question  made  it  necessary 
for  him  to  reveal  his  ascendency  over  them. 
For  their  answer  disclosed  a  temper  which 
was  not  likely  to  spare,  at  his  request,  the  dis- 
ciples whom  they  were  not  specially  charged 
to  seize.  Now,  therefore,  having  established 
his  moral  ascendency  over  them,  he  repeats 
his  inquiry.  Whom  seek  ye?  In  other 
words,  the  state  of  mind  into  which  they 
have  been  brought,  leads  him  to  ask  the  same 
question  once  more  ;  and  though  they  answer 
it  in  the  same  words  as  before:  Jesus  the 
Nazarene,  perhaps  because  they  were  wont  to 
speak  of  him  thus,  their  answer  was  changed 
in  tone,  showing  that  they  were  prepared  to 
listen  with  respect,  if  not  reverence,  to  what 
he  might  say.  Admitting  in  such  a  spirit 
til  at  they  were  sent  to  arrest  Jesus  the  Naza- 
rene  (the  commission  from  their  superiors 
may  have  designated  him  thus),  they  would 
be  ready  to  admit  that  they  had  no  right  to 
arrest  any  others,  and  the  object  of  Jesus 
would  be  gained.  Observe,  too,  that  it  was 
gained  by  just  as  brief  and  slight  a  display  of 
his  divine  ascendency  as  would  accomplish 
his  gracious  purpose. 

8.  ...  I  have  told  you.  Or,  /  told  you 
— i.  e.,  a  moment  ago.  This  was  more  effect- 
ive than  a  mere  repetition  of  the  words,  I 
am  he,  without  any  reference  to  the  awe-in- 
spiring manner  in  which  he  had  uttered  them 
before,  could  have  been.  If  therefore  ye 
seek  me.  Therefore — i.  e.,  in  accordance 
with  your  own  declaration.  He  founds  his 
claim  upon  their  statement.  Observe,  too, 
that  the  pronoun  me,  is  emphatic.  If  ye  are 
seeking  tne,  in  distinction  from  others,  let 
these  go  their  way.  In  other  words:  "Let 
these  withdraw"  without  molestation.  It 
seems,  therefore,  that  the  disciples  had  fol- 
lowed their  Master  to  the  entrance  of  the 
garden,  and  were  now  gathered  about  him. 
But  whatever  they  had  said  about  cleaving  to 
him,  and  however  ready  they  may  have  been 
at  this  moment  to  encounter  peril  for  his  sake, 
they  were  still   unstable,  their  courage  was 


still  fitful,  and  the  Lord,  in  kindness,  pro- 
vided for  their  safety.  In  this,  John  per- 
ceives a  fulfillment  of  Christ's  own  words,  in 
the  prayer  which  is  recorded  above.  (i7:  i-'.) 

9.  That  the  saying  might  be  fulfilled, 
which  he  spake.  Saying,  is  here  a  trans- 
lation of  the  Greek  term  logos,  which  might 
be  rendered,  as  in  so  many  other  places,  word. 
A  regard  to  English  idiom  would  lead  us  to 
write,  that  the  word  which  he  spake  might 
be  fulfilled,  and  this  version  would  fairly 
represent  the  meaning  of  the  original.  Of 
them  which  thou  gavest  me  have  I  lost 
none.  (Comp.  17:  12.)  Language  which 
was  used  by  Jesus  with  direct  reference  to  the 
past,  but  which  may  be  said  to  have  contained 
in  itself  implicitly  an  assurance  as  to  the 
future.  This  assurance,  the  Evangelist  per- 
ceived, was  fulfilled  by  the  action  of  his 
Master  at  this  time;  for  by  it  the  escape  of 
the  disciples  was  brought  about.  In  this  case, 
the  Kevised  Version  is  more  exact  than  the 
one  to  which  we  have  been  long  accustomed. 
The  former  reads:  Of  those  whom  thou  hast 
given  me  /  lost  not  one.  The  improvement 
is  in  a  more  correct  reproduction  of  the 
tenses  of  the  Greek  verbs,  and  in  substituting 
whom  for  which,  the  reference  being  to 
persons.  The  verbal  changes  are  certainly 
important. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  John  does  not 
here  quote  from  his  own  record  with  literal 
exactness.  For,  according  to  that  record, 
Jesus  said  ;  "  /  guarded  them,  and  not  one  of 
them  perished.''^ — Rev.  Ver.  The  quotation  is 
made  ad  sensum,  and  not  ad  literam.  and  in 
this  respect  it  agrees  with  many  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament,  by  the  apostles,  and 
their  associates,  who  wrote  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament.  But  such  a  method  was 
safer  in  the  hands  of  inspired  men  than  it  is 
in  those  of  ordinary  teachers  of  truth. 

Jesus  now,  by  his  own  word,  stood  revealed 
to  his  pursuers,  and  virtually  pledged  to 
make  no  resistance  to  his  arrest.  So  they 
began  to  press  upon  him,  in  order  to  fulfill 
their  commission.  But  the  disciples  were 
about  him,  and  the  impetuous  spirit  of  one 


356 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVIII. 


10  "TheD  Simon  Peter  having  a  sword  drew  it,  and 
smote  the  high  priest's  servant,  and  cut  ott'  his  right 
ear.    The  servants  name  was  Maluhus. 

11  Then  said  Jesus  unto  Peter,  Put  up  thy  sword  into 
the  sheath:  ''tlie  cup  which  my  Father  hulh  given  me, 
shall  I  not  drink  if.' 

12  Then  the  hand  and  the  captain  and  officers  of  the 
Jews  toot:  Jesus,  and  bound  him. 


10  me  I  lost  not  one.  Simon  Peter  therefore  hav- 
ing a  sword  drew  it,  and  struck  the  high  priest's 
1  servant,  and  cut  otl'  his  riglit  ear.    Now  the  ^  ser- 

11  vaut's  name  was  Malchus.  Jesus  therefore  said 
unto  Peter,  Put  up  tlie  sword  into  the  sheath:  the 
cup  which  the  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  I  not 
driuk  it? 

12  So  the  2  band  and  the  s chief  captain,  and  the  offl- 


:  51 ;  Mark  14  :  47  ;  Luke  22  :  49,  50 b  Matt. 


I. 1  Gr.  bondservant 2  Or,  ci>ft<M-t....3  0r,  military  tribvne. 


of  them  manifested  itself  in  a  rash  attempt  to 
repel,  by  force,  his  assailants. 

10.  Then  Simon  Peter.  (Or,  Simon  Petej- 
therefore. )  Therefore — i.  e. ,  because  Peter  was 
influenced  by  the  purpose  of  Christ  not  to  pro- 
tect himself  (ver.  8),  and  by  the  movement  of  his 
pursuers  to  effect  his  capture.  The  incident  is 
related  by  the  other  Evangelists  also,  (M:.tt.  26: 

51-53;  Mark  14;  47;  Luke  22:  49-51),  OIIC  of  whoin  men- 
tions a  question:  "Lord,  shall  we  smite  with 
the  sword?"  (Luke22:49,)  which  immediately 
preceded  the  act  of  Peter,  and  indicated  that 
he  was  not,  in  his  own  opinion,  the  only  one  of 
the  Eleven  who  thought  of  forcible  resistance. 
Peter,  however,  did  not  wait  for  an  answer 
from  his  Lord,  but,  having  a  sword,  drew 
it,  and  smote  the  high  priest's  servant, 
and  cut  oflT  his  right  ear.  It  must  be  re- 
garded as  probable  that  this  servant  was  one 
of  the  foremost  of  tho.se  who  rushed  towards 
Jesus  to  seize  him,  and  that  he  narrowly  es- 
caped losing  his  life.  For  the  suggestion  that 
Peter  judiciously  avoided  a  fatal  stroke,  is 
absurd.  The  next  remark  of  John  shows  his 
familiarity  with  the  scene,  and  his  knowledge 
of  the  persons  aifected.  The  servant's 
name  was  Malchus.  The  earlier  Evangel- 
ists do  not  mention  the  names  of  Peter  and  of 
Malchus,  though  the3'  must  have  known  that 
it  was  Peter  who  used  the  sword  on  this  occa- 
sion, even  if  they  did  not  know  the  name  of 
the  man  whom  he  wounded.  There  may 
have  been  good  reasons  for  not  giving  the 
name  of  either  in  the  early  preaching  of  the 
gospel. 

11.  Then  said  Jesus  unto  Peter.  (Or, 
Jesus  therefore  said  unto  Peter.)  For  the 
words  of  Jesus  were  occasioned  by  the  act  of 
his  impatient  disciple,  and  prompt  rebuke 
and  restraint  were  necessary  if  the  Eleven 
were  to  escape  seizure.  Put  up  thy  SAVord 
into  the  sheath.  The  best  text  reads,  the 
sword,  instead  of  thy  sword.  The  cnp 
Avhich  my  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  I 
not  drink  it  ?     Though  John  omits  any  ac- 


count of  the  Saviour's  agony  and  prayer  in 
the  garden,  he  inserts  here  a  saying  which 
proves  that  prayer  to  have  been  answered, 
and  proves  it  in  language  repeated  from  the 
prayer  itself.  (Comp.  Matt.  26:  39,  42;  Mark 
14:  36;  Luke  22:  42.)  The  cup  did  not  pass 
away  from  him,  but  he  received  strength  to 
drink  it  freely.  This  undesigned  coincidence 
is  highly  favorable  to  the  truth  of  the  several 
narratives.  Matthew  reports  some  other  ex- 
pressions of  the  Saviour,  thus:  "Put  up 
again  thy  sword  into  his  place:  for  all  they 
that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the 
sword  ;  thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot  now  pray 
to  my  Father,  and  he  shall  presently  give  me 
more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels?  But 
how  then  shall  the  Scripture  be  fulfilled, 
that  thus  it  must  be?"  Luke  adds  the  inter- 
esting circumstance  concerning  Malchus,  that 
Jesus  "touched  his  ear  and  healed  him,"  and, 
in  almost  verbal  agreement  with  Matthew 
and  Mark,  makes  this  record:  "Then  Jesus 
said  unto  the  chief  priests  and  captains  of  the 
temple,  and  the  elders  which  were  come  to 
him  :  Be  ye  come  out  as  against  a  thief,  with 
swords  and  staves?  When  I  was  daily  with 
you  in  the  temple,  ye  stretched  forth  no 
hands  against  me:  but  this  is  3'our  hour  and 
the  power  of  darkness."  Mark  relates  that 
at  this  point  "they  all  forsook  him  and  fled," 
and  Matthew  testifies  that  it  was  "all  the  dis- 
ciples" who  forsook  him  and  fled.  But  for 
an  account  of  "a  certain  young  man"  who 
followed  with  him  for  a  little  way,  .see  Mark 
14:  51-52,  with  the  Notes  of  Dr.  Clarke. 

12-23.  Private  Examination  of  Jesus. 
Denials  of  Peter. 

12.  Then  the  band,  etc.  Observe  the 
emphatic  enumeration  of  the  several  parties 
concerned  in  the  action.  The  word  chiliarch, 
translated  captain,  or,  chief  captain  (Kev. 
Ver. ),  signifies,  literally,  "leader  of  a  thou- 
sand,"— i.  €.,  a  prefect  or  tribune  of  a  Koman 
cohort.  (See  on  ver.  3.)  Yet,  as  was  there 
remarked,  it  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that 


Ch.  XVIIL] 


JOHN. 


857 


13  And  "led  him  away  to 'Annas  first;  for  he  was 
father  in  law  to  Caiaphas,  which  was  the  high  priest 
that  same  year. 

14  i^Now  Caiaphas  was  he,  which  gave  counsel  to  the 
Jews,  that  it  was  expedient  that  one  man  should  die 
for 'the  people. 


13  cers  of  the  Jews,  seized  Jesus  and  bound  him,  and 
led  him  to  Annas  first;  for  he  was  lather  in  law  to 

14  Caiaphas,  who  was  high  priest  that  year.  Now 
Caiaphas  was  he  who  gave  counsel  to  the  Jews, 
that  it  was  expedient  that  one  mau  should  die  lor 
the  people. 


o  See  Ma:l.  26:  57 6  Luke  3  :  2 c  ch.  11 :  50. 


the  whole  cohort  was  present  on  this  occasion. 
Took  Jesus.  Perhaps  the  stronger  term, 
seized,  represents  the  original  verb  better; 
for,  according  to  its  composition  and  primary 
sense,  it  refers  to  the  act  of  bringing  the 
hands  together  in  seizing  or  clutching  an 
object.  And  bound  him.  A  very  natural, 
though  needless  precaution  against  escape. 
Is  it  possible  that  their  momentary  terror  and 
confusion  (ver.  6)  made  them  anxious  to  see  the 
manacles  on  their  prisoner's  hands?  Or,  was 
it  the  customary  way  of  securing  persons  ar- 
rested for  alleged  crime?  The  other  Evan- 
gelists do  not  mention  this  binding  of  Jesus— 
(from  which  he  may  have  been  released  to 
appear  before  Annas  and  the  Sanhedrin),  but 
they  speak  of  his  being  bound,  in  order  to  be 
sent  by  the  Sanhedrin  to  Pilate.  (Matt.  27:2;  Mark 
15:1.)  "Perhaps  this  later  binding  was  a 
special  binding,  in  token  of  condemnation;  so 
early  tradition  represents,  affirming  that  he 
was  led  to  Pilate  with  a  cord  around  his 
neck." — Clarke.  If  this  was  the  case,  it  need 
not  be  supposed  that  he  was  released  before 
Annas  or  the  Sanhedrin. 

13.  And  led  him  aAvay  to  Annas  first. 
The  word  first,  assumes  the  fact  that  he  was 
led  elsewhere  afterwards,  but  it  is  unneces- 
sary to  regard  it  as  a  "tacit  correction"  of 
previous  narratives  that  had  failed  to  notice 
this  part  of  the  histt>ry.  For  he  Avas  fa- 
ther-in-law to  Caiaphas.  This  circum- 
stance is  mentioned  to  account  for  the  fact 
related.  "The  relationship  of  Caiaphas  is 
not  mentioned  by  any  writer  except  St. 
John,  and  yet  this  relationship  alone  explains 
how  Caiaphas  was  able  to  retain  his  office  by 
the  side  of  Annas  and  his  sons." — Wesfcott. 
For  Annas  appears  to  have  been  a  politic 
and  powerful  man.  Josephus  says  ("Ant." 
20.  9.  ?  1),  "that  he  had  five  sons  who  had  all 
performed  the  office  of  high  priest  to  God, 
and  he  had  himself  enjoj'ed  that  dignity  a 
long  time  formerly,"  etc.  Annas  was  high 
priest  seven  j'ears  (a.  d.  7  to  a.  d.  14); 
Joseph  Caiaphas  was  high  priest  twelve  years 
(A.  D.  25  to  A.  D.  37) ;   and  during  the  long 


period  in  which  the  office  was  filled  by  him- 
self, his  sons,  and  his  son-in-law,  he  was  prob- 
ably a  ruler  de  facto,  if  not  de  jure.  Luke 
speaks  of  the  high  priesthood  of  Annas  and 
Caiaphas  (s:  2),  doubtless  because  Annas  was 
recognized  by  the  people  as  virtually  sharing 
the  liigh  priesthood  with  his  son-in-law. 
It  is  therefore  probable  that  he  had  an 
office  in  the  palace  of  the  high  priest,  and 
that  his  personal  influence  and  control  were 
greater  than  those  of  Caiaphas.  To  him, 
then,  was  Jesus  first  led  and  subjected  to  an 
informal  examination,  with  the  purpose,  no 
doubt,  of  ascertaining  what  would  be  the  best 
method  of  procedure  in  the  legal,  or  at  least, 
formal,  process  before  the  Sanhedrin.  Who 
was  the  high  priest  that  same  year, 
Caiaphas  was  high  priest  twelve  years,  and  it 
is  therefore  necessary  to  suppose  that  the 
Evangelist  had  some  reason  for  adding  the 
words,  that  same  year;  otherwise  it  would 
have  been  more  natural  to  sa^'',  simply,  who 
was  high  priest.  Why  does  he  add  the 
expression,  that  same  year?  Evidently  be- 
cause that  was  a  most  memorable  j'ear  to  the 
Evangelist,  and  to  his  readers.  It  was  the 
year  of  all  years  to  "the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved."     (Comp.  11:  49.) 

14.  Now  Caiaphas  Avas  he,  etc.  Why 
this  reniini-scence  and  identification?  To  pre- 
pare the  reader's  mind  for  what  was  to  follow, 
or  at  least,  to  put  what  was  to  follow  in 
its  proper  relation  to  the  spirit  and  princi- 
ples of  one  of  the  chief  actors.  Jesus  was 
to  be  judged  by  Caiaphas  and  his  father-in- 
law,  Annas,  together  with  others,  who  would 
be  more  or  less  subject  to  their  influence ;  and 
there  could  be  no  prospect  of  a  fair  trial  and 
just  decision  when  the  high  priest  was  pre- 
pared to  sacrifice  the  life  of  one  man  (though 
innocent)  for  the  people,  when  the  judge  had 
already  decided  the  case,  without  legal  ex- 
amination, against  the  accused.  Lange  re- 
marks somewhat  sharply,  but  in  probable 
harmony  with  truth:  "It  is  also  character- 
istic of  the  enmity  of  old  Annas  that  Jesus 
was  led  to  him  even  before  he  was  brought  to 


358 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVIII. 


15  "And  Simon  Peter  followed  Jesus,  and  so  did  an- 
other disciple :  that  disciple  was  known  unto  the  high 
priest,  and  went  in  with  Jesus  into  the  palace  of  the 
high  priest. 

16  '  But  Peter  stood  at  the  door  without.  Then  went 
out  that  other  disciple,  whicli  was  known  unto  the  high 
priest,  and  spake  unto  her  that  kept  the  door,  and 
brouglit  in  Peter. 

17  Then  saith  the  damsel  that  kept  the  door  unto 
Peter,  Art  not  thou  also  one  of  this  man's  disciples? 
He  saith,  I  am  not. 


15  And  Simon  Peter  followed  Jesus,  and  so  did  an- 
other disciple.  Now  that  disciple  was  known  unto 
the  high  priest,  and  entered  in  with  Jesus  into  the 

16  court  of  the  high  priest;  but  Peter  was  standing  at 
the  door  without.  So  the  other  disciple,  who  was 
known  unto  the  high  priest,  went  out  and  spake 
unto  her  that  kept  the  door,  and  brought  in  Peter. 

17  The  maid  therefore  that  kept  the  door  saith  unto 
Peter,    Art  thou  also  one  of  this  man's  disciples? 


a  Matt  26:  58;  Mark  14:  51;  Luke  2'2  :  54 b  Matt.  26  : 


Caiaphas;  the  announcement  of  this  fact  is 
appropriately  afcompanied  by  the  statement 
that  he  was  the  father-in-law  of  that  murder- 
ous Caiaphas." 

15-18.  Side  View.     Introduction  and 
First  Denial  of  Peter. 

15.  Ani  Simon  Peter  followed   Jesus. 

The  verb,  in  the  imperfect  tense,  describes  the 
action  in  progress.  The  writer  recalls  the  scene, 
and  therefore  paints  it  as  it  rises  before  his 
mental  vision  out  of  the  fountain  of  memory. 
Though  all  the  disciples  had  fled  at  the  arrest 
of  Jesus,  Peter  soon  regained  courage  to  re- 
turn and  follow  the  Lord,  as  the  latter  was 
taken  to  the  pilace  of  the  high  priest,  in 
the  city.  And  so  did  another  disciple. 
Modestly  added,  and  meaning,  without  doubt, 
the  writer  of  this  Gospel.  (20:2.)  That  disci- 
ple was  known  unto  the  high  priest.  This 
remark  prepares  the  way  for  what  follows, 
namely,  first,  the  statement  that  he  went  into 
the  court  of  the  high  priest  with  .Jesus;  and, 
secondly,  the  statement  that  be  obtained  the 
admission  of  Peter.  His  acquaintance  with  the 
high  priest  was  such  as  to  account  for  his  doing 
these  things.  Hence,  it  implies  some  degree  of 
personal  respect  or  regard  on  the  part  of  the 
high  priest.  For  the  sense  of  the  word  trans- 
lated known,  in  such  a  connection  as  this, 
see  Luke  2 :  44,  and  23 :  49.  By  the  term  high 
priest,  we  are  probably  to  understand  Caia- 
phas, of  whom  the  Evangelist  has  just  re- 
marked that  he  was  "high  priest  that  same 
year."  (ver.  la.)  The  circumstance  that  Annas, 
though    an    ex-high    priest,    was    sometimes 

called  high  priest  fe.  ^..inLuke  2:  3  and  Acts  4:  6),  is  no 

sufficient  reason  for  supposing  that  he  can  be 
meant  by  that  title  here,  so  soon  after  the 
statement  that  Caiaphas  was  high  priest. 
Went  in  with  Jesus — i.  e.,  with  the  com- 
pany that  brought  in  Jesus,  being  admitted 
as  an  acquaintance  of  the  high  priest. 


16.  But  Peter  stood  at  the  door  with- 
out. The  verb  has  the  force  of  an  imperfect 
— was  standing.  Evidently  John,  looking 
back,  saw  Peter  through  the  open  door,  or 
noticed  his  absence  and  went  back  to  find 
him,  easily  conjecturing  where  he  might  be. 
What  were  the  feelings  that  led  Peter  to  re- 
main at  the  door  when  he  was  not  suffered  to 
enter,  no  man  knows  ;  or  how  long  he  waited 
there  before  John  came  to  bring  him,  can 
only  be  conjectured;  but  the  period  must 
have  been  short.  Then  (oCi'=so,  or  there- 
fore)— i.  e.,  because  Peter  was  standing  thus^ 
went  out  that  other  disciple,  which  was 
known  unto  the  high  priest — and,  natu- 
rally, also  to  his  servants — and  spake  unto 
her  that  kept  the  door  (comp.  Acts  12:  13), 
asking  her,  no  doubt,  to  admit  his  friend, 
who  was  standing  without — and — with  the 
consent  of  the  door-keeper — brought  in 
Peter.  But  the  maid  who  had  charge  of  the 
door  was  aware  of  the  reason  why  Jesus  had 
been  seized  and  taken  to  her  master's  court; 
she  therefore  scrutinized  Peter  as  he  entered, 
and  either  because  he  was  a  friend  of  John, 
whom  she  knew  to  be  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  or 
because  of  something  in  his  looks  or  bearing, 
she  suspected  him  to  be  a  disciple,  and  ques- 
tioned  him  on  the  point. 

17.  Art  not  thou  also — as  well  as  John — 
one  of  this  man's  disciples?  Either  from 
a  feeling  of  courte.s3',  or  because  she  was  quite 
uncertain  as  to  the  fitct,  the  damsel's  question 
was  so  framed  as  to  show  that  she  looked  for 
a  negative  answer;  as  if  she  had  said  in  Eng- 
lish:  "Thou  art  not,  I  suppose,  one  of  this 
man's  disciples?"  And,  alas,  Peter  answer- 
ed, I  am  not.  This  was  his  first  denial,  made 
to  the  door-keeper  as  he  was  passing  by  her, 
into  the  court.  What  did  Peter  think  of 
himself  when  he  uttered  these  words?  And 
what  did  the  true-hearted  John  think  of  his 
friend  when  he  heard  this  denial  ? 


Cii.  XVIIL] 


JOHN. 


359 


18  And  the  servants  and  officers  stood  there,  who  had 
made  a  ftre  of  coals;  for  it  was  coM:  and  ihey  warmed 
themselves:  and  Peter  stood  with  them,  and  warmed 
himself. 

19  The  high  priest  then  asked  Jesus  of  his  disciples, 
and  of  his  doctrine. 

2iJ  Jesus  answered  him,  "  I  spake  openly  to  the  world ; 
I  ever  taught  in  the  synagotrue,  and  in  the  temple, 
whither  tlie  Jews  always  resort;  and  iu secret  have  1 
said  nothing. 


18  He  saith,  I  am  not.  Now  the  'servants  and  the 
officers  were  standing  there,  having  made  -a  fire  of 
coals;  for  it  was  cold;  and  they  were  warming 
themselves:  and  Peter  also  was  with  them,  stand- 
ing and  warming  himself. 

19  The  high  priest  therelore  asked  Jesus  of  his  dis- 

20  ciples,  and  of  his  teaching.  Jesus  answered  him,  I 
have  spoken  openly  to  the  world;  I  ever  taught  iu 
i*  synagogues,  and  iu  the  temple,  where  all  the  Jews 


a  Matt.  28:  55;  Luke  4  :  15  ;  ch.  7  :  14,  26,  28;  8:  2. 1  Gr.  bondservants 2  Gr.  afire  of  charcoal 3  synagogue. 


18.  And  the  servants  and  officers  stood 
there.  More  e.vactly  :  And  the  servants  and 
officers  were  standing  there,  in  the  open  court, 
which  Peter  hud  now  entered  with  John. 
Who  had  made  a  fire  of  coals — literally, 
having  made  a  charcoal  fire — for  it  was  cold. 
Note  that  the  Roman  soldiers  are  not  men- 
tioned; perhaps  they  had  returned  to  Anto- 
nia;  the  bond-servants  of  the  high  priest  and 
the  officers  of  the  Sanhedrin,  or  temple- 
police,  are  the  persons  meant.  The  coldness 
appears  to  have  been  unusual  for  the  time  of 
the  passover.  For  it  is  said  that  the  nights 
are  generally  warm  in  Palestine  at  this  season 
of  the  year.  That  the  Evangelist  saw  any- 
thing sjMTibolic  of  Peter's  condition  or  con- 
duct, is  by  no  means  certain,  though  it  has 
been  supposed.  And  Peter  stood  Avith 
them,  and  warmed  himself.  This  is  best 
rendered  in  the  Revised  Version  :  And  Peter 
also  was  with  them,  standing  and  warming 
himself.  Tiie  picture  is  clearly  drawn.  In 
the  dim  court  is  the  charcoal  fire,  with  dark- 
browed  men  surrounding  it.  The  light  of 
the  coals  is  just  sufficient  to  reveal  the  features 
of  the  men  when  they  turn  to  look  upon  the 
fire.  Peter  is  there,  seemingly  indifferent  to 
the  trial  taking  place  within  sight.  John, 
too,  is  there,  probably  on  the  side  of  the  fire 
toward  the  place  where  his  Master  stands, 
glancing  now  and  then  at  Peter,  but  listen- 
ing chiefly  to  the  examination  of  Jesus  by 
the  high  priest.  And  to  this  he  now  directs 
our  attention. 

19-24.  The  High  Priest  Questions 
Jesus  Before  Annas. 

19.  The  high  priest  then,  etc.  Better: 
therefore,  {oiv)  the  high  priest.  Therefore — 
t.  e.,  because  he  was  such  a  man  as  could 
utter  the  saying  recalled  in  verse  14;  for  the 
Evangelist  now  returns  in  thought  to  what 
was  said  in  that  verse.  Standing,  as  John 
probably  did,  between  the  group  about  Peter 
and  the  group  about  Jesus,  he  turns  from  one 


party  to  the  other  in  his  narrative,  presenting 
the  scene  in  a  remarkably  simple  and  vivid 
manner.  Here  the  character  and  spirit  of 
the  question  are  supposed  to  flow  out  of  the 
character  and  spirit  of  the  man.  Asked 
Jesus  of  his  disciples — i.  e.,  concerning 
them.  Just  what  he  asked  concerning  them, 
is  not  said;  perhaps,  who  they  were,  or  how 
numerous  they  were,  or  what  was  their  clnir- 
acter,  or  what  they  had  done,  or  wliat  they 
proposed  to  do.  And  of  his  doctrine,  or 
teaching — i.  e.,  what  it  had  been.  The  object 
of  this  preliminary  examination  was,  doubt- 
less, to  obtain  materials  for  the  more  public 
trial  to  follow.  But  the  wisdom  of  Clirist 
was  more  than  a  match  for  the  craft  of  his 
foes. 

20.  I  spake  openly  to  the  world.  The 
pronoun  I  is  emphatic,  and  may  imply  a  con- 
trast between  himse  f  and  his  adversaries,  who 
had  secretly  plotted  his  destruction.  The 
Greek  verb  should  be  translated  have  spoken, 
instead  of  spake.  To  the  Avorld,  because  his 
teaching  had  been  intended  for  mankind  gen- 
erally. It  had  not  been  delivered  cautiously 
to  a  few,  who  were  at  the  same  time  charged 
to  keep  and  transfer  it  as  an  esoteric  doctrine; 
but  it  had  been  proclaimed  openly  to  the 
people,  so  that  whoever  would  might  know  it. 
Even  the  parables  were  the  best  form  of 
teaching  to  those  to  whom  they  were  ad- 
dressed. Spiritual  sympathy  with  the  truth 
would  have  made  them  intelligible  to  the 
people.  I  ever  (or,  always)  taught  in  the 
synagogue.  There  is  no  article  before 
synagogue,  in  the  Greek  text,  and  the  ex- 
pression in  synagogue,  may  be  understood 
as  we  would  understand  in  church,  or,  in 
meeting,  at  the  present  time.  And  in  the 
temple.  There  were  many  synagogues  and 
but  one  temple — the  temple  at  Jerusalem  ;  and 
to  this  Jesus  resorted  on  the  great  festivals, 
teaching  boldly  in  its  courts.  Of  course, 
Jesus   does   not  mean  to  say  that  he  never 


360 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVIII. 


21  Why  askest  thou  me?  ask  them  which  heard  me, 
what  I  have  said  unto  them :  behold,  they  know  what 
I  said. 

22  And  when  he  had  thus  spoken,  one  of  the  officers 
which  stood  by  "struck  Jesus  with  the  palm  of  bis  hand, 
Saying,  Answerest  thou  the  high  priest  so? 

23  Jesus  answered  hiiu.  If  i  have  spoken  evil,  bear 
witness  of  the  evil:  but  if  well,  why  s:iiiiest  thou  me? 


21  come  together;  and  in  secret  spake  I  nothing.  Why 
askest  thou  me?  ask  them  that  have  heard  me, 
what  1  spake  unto  tbeui :    behold,  these  know  the 

22  things  which  1  said.  And  when  lie  had  said  this, 
oue  of  the  otiicers  standing  by  struck  Jesus  i  with 
his  right  hand,  saying,  Answert/sl  thou  the  high  priest 

23  so?  Jesus  answered  him.  If  I  have  spoken  evil, 
bear  witness  of  the  evil:   but  if  well,  why  smitest 


a  Jer.  20 :  2  ;  Acts  23  .  2. 1  Or,  with  a  rod.       I 


taught  in  a  private  house,-  or  by  the  wayside; 
but,  rather,  that  constantly,  luibitually,  and, 
as  far  as  circumstances  might  permit,  he 
taught  in  public  assemblies.  His  teaching 
was  characteristically  unreserved  and  public. 
Whither  the  Jews  always  resort,  should 
be,  according  to  the  best  supported  text  (X  A 
B  C*  L  X  n,  vulg.  Syr.  Copt.),  where  all  the 
Jews  come  together.  That  is,  in  the  openest 
manner  possible,  in  the  place  of  all  others 
where  the  devout  Jews  and  the  ecclesiastical 
rulers  of  the  people  are  wont  to  assemble. 
And  in  secret  have  I  said  nothing.  More 
literally,  And  in  secret  spnke  InotJiing.  That 
is,  with  the  purpose  of  concealment.  What 
he  had  sometimes  spoken  to  the  twelve  in 
private,  had  been  spoken  to  them  alone,  be- 
cause others  were  not  yet  prepared  to  receive 
it.  Moreover,  the  disciples  were  expected  to 
proclaim  what  they  thus  heard  to  all  the  peo- 
ple, or  on  "the  house  tops."    (Matt.  10:27.) 

21.  Why  askest  thou  me  ?  It  is  a  case 
■which  offers  no  apology  for  questioning  the 
accused,  and  Jesus  perceives  very  clearly, 
that  the  only  object  of  the  high  priest  is  to 
draw  from  him  some  expression  that  can  be 
turned  against  him  in  the  approaching  trial. 
Ask  them  which  heard  me,  etc.  The  Re- 
vised Version  is  more  accurate:  A-nk  them 
that  have  heard  nie,  what  I  spake  nnto  them. 
The  Saviour  would  have  the  trial  conducted 
in  a  regular  and  proper  manner,  by  hearing 
the  testimony  of  competent  witnesses.  Be- 
hold, they  (or,  these)  know  Avhat  (or,  the 
things  which)  I  said.  The  pronoun  these, 
indicates  the  presence  of  suitable  witnesses; 
for  it  refers  to  those  near,  as  contrasted  with 
those  at  a  distance.  The  same  fact  is,  per- 
haps, suggested  by  the  use  of  the  perfect 
tense,  have  heard,  in  the  preceding  clause. 
This  language  of  Jesus  is  a  dignified  remon- 
strance against  the  method  adopted  by  the 
high  priest;  perhaps  it  was  felt  by  Jesus  to 
imply  a  degree  of  hypocrisy  on  his  (the  high 
priest's)  part.  At  anj'  rate  it  was  interpreted 
by  some  as  disrespectful  to  the  high  priest. 


22.  Neither  the  Common  version,  One  of 
the  officers  Avhich  stood  by,  nor  the  Re- 
vised Version,  One  of  the  officers  standing  by, 
represents  decisively  the  meaning  of  the 
Greek;  for  neither  version  shows  that  stood 
by  (in  the  former),  or,  standing  by  (in  the 
latter),  refers,  not  to  the  body  of  oflicers,  but 
merely  to  that  one  of  them  who  struck  Jesus. 
The  ambiguity  may  be  removed  by  transla- 
ting as  follows:  One  of  the  officers  who  was 
standing  by ;  the  sense  being,  that  this  oflScer 
was  standing  beside  Jesus.  Struck  Jesus 
with  the  palm  of  his  hand.  The  Greek 
expression  used  by  the  Evangelist,  may  sig- 
nify, either  that  the  soldier  gave  the  face  of 
Jesus  a  rude  slap  with  his  hand,  or,  that  he 
struck  him  with  a  rod.  In  either  case,  the 
blow  was  an  insult,  and  it  was  probably  given 
with  such  force  as  to  occasion  severe  pain. 
But  it  did  not  disturb  the  holy  serenity  and 
patience  of  Christ,  as  his  response  clearly 
shows. 

23.  If  I  have  spoken  (rather,  spake)  evil, 
bear  witness  of  the  evil.  Does  Jesus  here 
refer  to  his  answer  to  the  high  priest,  which 
had  provoked  the  oflicer,  or  to  the  teaching 
of  his  ministry,  which  the  high  priest  had 
asked  him  to  explain?  Some  interpreters 
have  supposed  him  to  mean  the  latter,  be- 
cause lie  calls  upon  the  officer  to  bear  wit- 
ness of  the  evil — an  expression  which  is  be- 
lieved to  suit  the  latter  reference  better  than 
the  former.  There  is  force  in  this  reasoning, 
but  it  seems  to  be  overcome  by  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  officers  blow  was  given 
because  of  the  Lord's  answer  to  the  high 
priest;  while  the  reproof  of  .lesus  was  called 
out  by  that  blow.  Accordingly,  the  words  of 
Jesus  mean:  "If  what  I  just  spake  to  the 
high  priest  was  wrong,  bear  solemn  testimony 
againt  it  as  wrong;  that  would  be  right  and 
fitting."  But  if  well,  why  smitest  thou 
me  ?  The  primary  sense  of  the  word  trans- 
lated smite,  is,  to  skin,  to  flay ;  "in  the  X. 
T.,"  says  Dr.  Robinson,  "  ^o  beat,  to  smite,  to 
scourge,  properly,  so  as  to  take  off  the  skin." 


Ch.  XVIIL] 


JOHN. 


361 


24  "Now  Annas  had  sent  him  bound  unto  the  high  ]  24  thou  me?     Annas  theix-t'ore  sent  hiui  buuud  uuio 

Caiaphus  the  liigli  prifsl. 
25    Now  ?iiuuu  Pelur  \va.-s  standing  and  warming  him- 
self.   Tliuy  said  tlierelore  uiilo  hiui,  Art  tliuu  also 
one  of  his  disciples/     lie  denied,  and  said,  1  am  not. 


priest. 
25  And    Simon    Peter    stood    and    warmed   himself. 


'They  said  llierefore  unto  him,  Art  not  tliou  also  one 
of  his  disciples?    He  denied  /7,  and  said,  I  am  not. 

2()  One  of  the  servants  of  the  high  priest,  lieing  his  l  26  One  of  the  'servants  of  the  high  priest,  heiug  a  kin 
kinsman  whose  ear  Peter  cut  off,  saith,  Did  not  1  see  1  man  of  him  whose  ear  Peter  cut  oU,  sailh,  iJid  n< 
thee  in  the  garden  with  him '!  \ 

a  MAtl.  26  :  57 h  Malt.  26 :  6!),  71 ;  Mark  14  :  69  ;  Luke  22  :  58. —  1  Gr.  hondaeTvantt. 


It  is  perhaps  safe  to  infer  from  the  Saviour's 
use  of  this  word  that  the  officer's -blow  was  a 
severe  one;  and  it  is  perfectly  certain  that 
Jesus  here  chiims  to  have  spoken  well  in  his 
answer  to  the  high  priest.  It  is  interesting  to 
compare  his  hearing  on  this  occasion  with  his 
words  as  preserved  in  Matt.  5:  39,  and  with 
the  bearing  of  Paul  under  similar  provoca- 
tion.     (Acts  23:  2-5.) 

24.  Now  Annas  had  sent  him,  etc.  The 
Kevised  Version  is  here  probably  correct: 
Annas  therefore  sent  him  bound  unto  Caia- 
phas.  Thus  far  the  investigation  had  been 
unofficial,  or  private,  and  tiie  result  of  it  was 
scarcely  favorable  to  the  design  of  the  accus- 
ers. Meantime,  th?  prisoner  had  been  relieved 
of  his  fetters.  But  now  Annas  sends  him 
probably  across  the  inner  court,  where  the 
charcoal  fire  was  burning,  to  another  room  in 
the  same  edifice,  wiiere  Caiaphas,  with  the 
Sanhedrin,  would  subject  him  to  a  formal 
trial.  For  it  has  been  well  said,  in  the 
"Popular  Commentar3%"  that  "Annas  and 
Caiaphas  may  have  occupied  apartments  in 
the  same  house,  surrounding  the  'court'  of 
our  narrative.  The  structure  of  higher-class 
houses  in  Palestine,  the  relationship  of  the 
persons  themselves,  and  the  customs  of  the 
East,  lead,  not  unnaturally,  to  such  a  view; 
and  it  was  very  early  entertained.  But  if  so, 
though  Jesus  was  really  taken  to  Annas,  Caia- 
phas would,  in  all  probability,  be  present  at 
the  examination  ;  and,  thus  present,  his  more 
youthful  years,  and  the  passionateness  of  his 
rage  against  Jesus,  would  lead  him  to  act  the 
prominent  part  which  is  assigned  to  him." 

25-27.  Another  Sidk  View.  Second 
AND  Third  Denials  of  Peter. 

25.  The  Evangelist  now  returns  to  Peter. 
And  Simon  Peter  stood  and  warmed 
himself.  Literally,  was  standing  and -warm- 
ing him,Helf.  By  these  words  he  recalls  to 
the  reader's  mind  the  precise  situation  of  this 
disciple  when  last  referred  to  (ver.is),  a  situa- 
tion which  he  retained  for  some  time.  Mean- 
while, the   members  of  the   Sanhedrin   were 


probably  coming  together,  that  they  might 
take  part  in  the  more  formal  trial  of  Jesus. 
They  said  therefore  unto  him.  This  may 
have  occurred  while  Jesus  was  being  led 
across  the  open  court  to  another  apartment  of 
the  building.  The  plural  form  of  the  verb 
translated  said,  is  best  explained  by  suppos- 
ing that  several  persons  expressed,  more  or 
less  positively,  their  suspicion  that  Peter  (as 
well  as  John)  was  one  of  Christ's  followers. 
It  suggests,  therefore,  a  very  obvious  expla- 
nation of  certain  difierences  between  the  nar- 
rations of  the  several  Evangelists  at  this 
point.  For  Matthew  relates,  that  another 
maid  (dAATj)  said.  .  .  This  man  was  also  with 
Jesus  of  Nazareth;  Mark  relates,  that  The 
m.aid  (>}  TratSto-Kr/)  began  to  say.  .  .  This  is  one 
of  them;  while  Luke  relates,  that  another 
man  (eVepos)  said.,  Thou  also  art  one  of  them. 
According  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  Peter 
went,  at  this  time,  toward  the  gate  by  which 
he  had  entered.  This  change  of  place  would 
have  been  very  natural  in  the  excited  state  of 
his  mind,  and  could  have  required  but  a  few 
steps.  The  substance  of  what  they  said  to 
Peter,  as  heard  by  this  Evangelist,  could  be 
summed  up  in  the  questicm  :  Art  not  thou 
also  one  of  this  man's  disciples?  The 
form  of  the  question  is  like  that  in  verse  17: 
"It  cannot  be,  can  it?  that  thou  also  art  one 
of  his  disciples!  "  The  word  also,  may  im- 
ply that  the  questioners  were  aware  of  the 
presence  of  .John,  and  knew  him  to  be  a  dis- 
ciple of  Jesus.  He  denied  it,  and  said,  I 
am  not.  The  it,  after  denied,  represents 
nothing  in  the  Greek  text,  and  is  unnecessary 
to  the  proper  expression  of  the  writer's 
thought  in  English.  For  this  reason,  it  is 
omitted  in  the  Revised  Version.  Matthew 
saj^s  that  Peter  denied  again,  with  an  oath 
(saying),  /  do  not  know  the  m,an.  Of  course, 
the  stronger  form  includes  the  weaker,  while 
the  weaker  does  not  exclude  the  stronger. 
Indeed,  it  is  very  probable  that  both  were 
used. 
26.  One  of  the   servants   of  the  high. 


362 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVIII. 


27  Peter  then  denied  again;  and  "immediately  the  1  27  I  see  thee  in  the  garden  with  him?    Peter  therefore 


28  'Then  led  they  Jesus  from  Caiaphas  unto  the  hall 
of  judgment:  ami  it  was  early;  "and  they  themselves 
went  not  into  the  judgment  hall,  lest  they  should  be 
detiled:  but  that  they  might  eat  the  passover. 


denied  again  :  and  straightway  the  cock  crew. 

28      They  led  Jesus  therefore  from  C'aiaphus  into  the 

1  Prictorium  :  and  it  was  early  ;  and  they  themselves 

entered  not  into  the  i  Prsetorium,  that  they  might 


a  Matt.  26:  74;  Mark  14:  72;  Luke  22  ;  60;  cU.  13 :  38 6  Matt.  27:  2:  Mark  15 :  1 ;  Luke  23  :  1 ;  Acts  3 :  13 c  Acts  10:28;  11 :  3.- 

1  Or.  palace. 


priest.  Ill  the  open  court,  about  the  fire, 
were  servants  and  officers  (seever.  18),  that  is, 
servants  of  the  high  priest,  and  officers  of  the 
Sanhedrin.  It  is  one  of  the  former  who  is 
now  referred  to.  Being  his  kinsman,  etc. 
Better:  Being  a  kinsman  of  him  whose  ear 
Feter  cut  off.  (ver.  lo.)  This  description  of  the 
questioner  prepares  the  reader  for  the  sharper 
form  of  tlie  question,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
shows  that  the  writer  had  an  accurate  knowl- 
edge of  the  high  priest's  household.  Ft)r  the 
form  of  the  question  in  Greelc  is  one  that  an- 
ticipates an  affirmative  answer,  while  the 
words.  Did  not  I  see  tliee  in  the  garden 
with  him?  implies  that  a  denial  will  be 
against  the  personal  knowledge  of  the  ques- 
tioner. Note  the  truth  to  nature  in  this  ques- 
tion, and  the  life-like  particularity  of  the 
narrative. 

27.  Peter  then  denied  again.    The  Ke- 
vised  Version  substitutes  therefore  for  then, 
as  a  translation  of  the  Greek  conjunction  (oSv.) 
The  repeated  temptation  is  represented  as  ac- 
counting for  the  repeated  sin.     The  charge  of 
discipleship  was  made  anew,  and  therefore,  as 
Peter  had  entered  the  way  of  disloyalty  and 
falsehood,  his  denial  of  Chri.«t  was  renewed. 
The  second  step  in  sin  is  easier  to  take  than 
the  fir.st,  and   the  third  still  easier  than   the 
second.     And  immediately  the  cock  crew. 
There  is  no  article  in  the  Greek  te.vt  before 
the  noun,  and,  perhaps,  the  exact  meaning  of 
the  Evangeli-st  would  be  given  by  omitting  it 
in    English — and    immediately   a   cock   crew. 
Thus  .John  has  recorded  the  fulfillment  of  his 
Master's  word,  spoken  the  evening  before,  in 
the  upper  room.     (See  13:38.)     But  he  does 
not   here  speak  of  the   repentance  of  Peter, 
though  that  repentance  is  presupposed  by  his 
subsequent  narrative.     (See  20:  3-10,  and  es- 
pecially 21 :  7,  15-17.)    Nor  does  he  speak  of 
the  later  and  more  public  trial  of  Jesus  before 
the    Sanhedrin,    which    is    described    in   the 
Synoptic    Gospels.      (See    Matt.    26:    59-68; 
Mark  14 :  55-65 ;  Luke  22 :  63-71. )    His  reasons 
for  this  omission  may  have  been,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  circumstance  that  the  preliminary 


examination  had  iHustrated  sufficiently  both 
the  spirit  of  Christ  and  the  animus  of  the 
hierachy  toward  him,  and,  on  the  other,  the 
circumstance  that  the  later  trial  had  been  suf- 
ficiently described  hy  the  earlier  Evangelists. 
28-40;  19:  1-16.  The  Civil  Trial. 
Westcott  remarks,  that  "the  narrative  falls 
into  several  distinct  sections,  corresponding  to 
scenes  without  and  within  the  prietorium  :  1. 
Without  the  praetorium.  The  Jews  claim 
the  execution  of  their  sentence.  (18:28-32.)  2. 
Within  the  prsetorium.  'The  good  confes- 
sion.' Christ  a  King.  (3:i-37.)  3.  Without  the 
prsetorium.  First  declaration  of  innocence. 
Barabbas.  (38-40.)  4.  Within  the  prajtorium. 
Scourging;  mockery.  (i9:i-3.)  5.  AVithout 
the  praetorium.  Second  and  third  declara- 
tions of  innocence.  'Ecce  homo,'  'Son  of 
God.'  (<-7.)  6.  Within  the  prajtorium.  The 
source  of  authority,  and  from  this  the  measure 
of  guilt.  (8-11.)  7.  Without  the  praetorium. 
Conviction  overpowered;  the  king  abjured; 
the  last  sentence.  (12-16.)" 

28-32.  The  Claim  of  the  Jewish 
EuLEKS  Refused  by  Pilate. 

28.  Then  led  they  Jesus,  etc.  The  Re- 
vised Version  is  more  exact :  They  lead  Jesus 
therefore  from  Caiaphas  into  tJie  palace.  Bet- 
ter, unto  the  praetorium.  Who  aie  the  per- 
sons represented  by  the  word  they?  It  had 
been  decided  by  the  highest  ecclesiastical 
court  of  the  Jews  that  Jesus  was  worthy  of 
death.  (Matt.  26:65-67.)  But  the  members  of  that 
court  had  no  authority,  at  that  time,  to  inflict 
capital  punishment.  Tliis  authority  had  been 
taken  from  them  by  the  Roman  government. 
Hence,  they  lead  Jesus  to  Pilate,  hoping  that 
the  latter,  a  somewhat  unscrupulous  magis- 
trate, would  confirm  and  execute  the  sentence 
which  they  had  passed.  Wiiether  the  prseto- 
rium, or  official  residence  of  Pilate,  was  the 
palace  built  by  Herod,  on  the  western  hill  of 
.Jerusalem,  or  a  part  of  the  Castle  of  Antonia, 
at  tne  northwest  corner  of  the  temple  area,  is 
not  certainly  known ;  but  the  latter  view  is. 
on  the  whole,  more  probable  than  the  former. 
And    it  was   early.    The    word  translated 


Ch.  XVIII.] 


JOHN. 


363 


early   (n-ptoi'a,  sc.  oipa,  lit.,  an   early   hour),   is 
used  in  a  lechnicul  sense  to  denote  the  fourth 
Wiltch,  from  3-6  a.  M.    (Markl3:35.)     Pihitc,  wlu) 
was  acquainted  with  the  intense  religious  pre- 
judice of  the  Jews,  and  by  whose  permission 
tlie    Roman   cohort    iiad   been    employed    in 
seizing  Jesus   and  taking  him  bound  to  the 
house  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  had  probably 
kept  himself  informed  of  the  general  course 
of  events  during  the  night,  and  was  there- 
fore  prepared  for  the  accusation  that  was  to 
be  made  against  the   prisoner.      And  they 
themselves — in  contrast  with  Jesus,  who  was 
doubtless  delivered  into  the  hands  of  soldiers, 
and  led  into  the  prietorium — went  not  into 
the    judgment    hall    (or,   proetorium),    lest 
they  should  be  defiled  (or,  that  they  might 
not  be  defiled)  ;  but  that  they  might  eat  the 
passover.     What  light  does  this  cast  upon 
the  day  when  the  Lord  ate  the  passover  with 
his  disciples?     The  Evangelist's  words  imply 
that    these    conspirators   against    the   life    of 
Jesus  supposed  that,  by  entering  the  court  of 
Pilate,  they  would  be  so  defiled  as  to  be  un- 
able to  cleanse  themselves,  ritually,  in  time 
to  eat  the  passover.     But  if  we  assume  that 
Jesus  anticipated  the  regular  time  of  eating 
the  paschal  lamb  by  one  day,  thesr  conspira- 
tors were  afraid  of  being  so  polluted  by  enter- 
ing the  proetorium  that  they  could  not  purify 
themselves  before  the  next  evening,  and  then 
eat  the  paschal  lamb.     Yet  such  a  fear  is  un- 
accountable.     Fur  the  hour  of   sunset  was 
between  them  and  the  time  when  they,  on 
this  hypothesis,   would  wish  to  eat  the  pass- 
over,  and  at  the  time  of  sunset  "uncleanness 
of  a  much  more  serious  kind  than  that  pro- 
duced bj'  entering  into  the  house  of  a  Gentile 
was  removed  by  the  simple  process  of  wash- 
ing with  water."    (Lev.  is :o.u,  i6-i8;  22:5-7.)    The 
language  of  the  Evangelist  cannot,  therefore, 
be  safely  used  as  an  argument  for  the  some- 
what popular  view,  that  the  supper  described 
in  chapter  13  of  this  Gospel,  occurred  twenty- 
four  hours  before  the  regular  time  for  eating 
the  paschal  lamb.     But  in  what  other  way 
can    this    language    be    explained?      Many 
scholars  answer :     By  the  fact  that   the  pass- 
over  may  denote  the  whole  festival,  as  well  as 
the  paschal  supper,  and  that  eating  the  pass- 
over,  may  refer  to  partaking  of  food  during 
any  part  of  the  festival.     The  Note  of  Dr. 
Gardiner  is  brief,  and  may  be  copied :     "  The 


phrase  to  eat  the  passover,  occurs  five  times  in 
the  New  Testament  (muu.  26;  n-,  Mark  u-.  12,  u;  Luke 
22: 11, 15),  and  once  in  the  Old  Testament  (2  Cbron. 
30:18),  and  in  all  these  places  it  means  to  eat 
the  Paschal  Supper,  strictly.  As  all  the  in- 
stances in  the  New  Testament,  however,  refer 
to  one  and  the  same  occasion,  this  recurrence 
does  not  go  very  far  to  prove  that  the  expre-s- 
sion  must  be  limited  to  this.  Now  the  word 
passover  (n-acrxa),  is  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  a  variety  of  significations:  (1)  For 
the  paschal  lamb— Mark  14:  12;  Luke  22:  7; 
and  fmetaph.)  1  Cor.  6:  7.  (2)  For  the  pas- 
chal supper— Matt.  20:  18, 19;  Luke  22:  8,  13; 
Heb.  11:  28,  etc.  (3)  For  the  whole  paschal 
festival  of  the  seven  days  of  unleavened 
bread— Luke  22:  1;  2:  41-43;  Matt.  26:  2; 
John  2:  23.  (4)  Indefinitely,  in  such  a  way 
that  it  may  be  understood  either  as  in  (2)  or 
as  in  (3),  and  yet,  the  latter  meaning  having 
been  established,  more  naturally  in  that — 
John  2:13;  6:4;  11:  55;  12:  1;  13:1.  In 
John  18  :  28,  29;  19:  14,  the  meaning  is  in  dis- 
pute. It  will  be  observed  that  all  the  instan- 
ces in  (4)  are  from  St.  John,  and  that  all.  the 
passages  in  St.  John  in  which  tlie  word  occurs, 
fall  under  this  head,  or  under  (3.)  It  is  ap- 
parent that  he  uses  the  word  in  its  most  gen- 
eral sense.  The  phrase,  therefore,  that  they 
might  eat  the  passover,  as  used  by  him,  would 
seem  naturally  to  refer  to  the  feast  during  the 
seven  days,  or  any  of  them,  and  not  specially 
to  the  paschal  lamb."  Some  of  these  would 
occur  during  the  day  just  dawning,  and  it  is 
not  surprising  that  the  ecclesia.stical  rulers 
were  "unwilling  to  defile  themselves  by  en- 
tering beneath  the  roof  of  the  Gentile  pro- 
curator." 

But  this  is  not  the  only  substitute  for  the 
first  interpretation.  (See  Edersheim,  "The 
Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,"  II.  pp. 
565,  6.)  It  is  possible  that  the  Jewish  rulers 
had  been  too  much  absorbed  by  their  success 
in  capturing  Jesus  and  their  eflforts  to  secure 
his  condemnation,  to  partake  of  the  paschal 
supper  at  the  usual  time  in  the  evening  be- 
fore, and  were  hoping  to  partake  of  it  at  the 
last  moment  possible.  This  is  Prof.  Milli- 
gan's  view.  "They  were  scrupulous,  because 
they  desired  to  eat  without  an  hour's  delay. 
They  had  lost  time  already;  the  night  was 
flying  fast;  the  morning  light  would  soon  ap- 
pear ;  it  would  be  too  late  then ;  no  interrup- 


364 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVIII. 


29  Pilate  then  went  out  unto  them,  and  said,  What 
acciisaliou  bring  ye  against  this  man? 

30  Tliey  answered  and  said  unto  him,  If  he  were  not 
a  mulelaiCtor,  we  would  not  have  delivered  him  up  unto 
thee. 

ill  Then  said  Pilate  unto  them,  Take  ye  him,  and 
judge  him  according  to  your  law.  The  Jews  therefore 
said  unto  him.  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man 
to  death : 


29  not  be  defiled,  but  might  eat  the  passover.  Pilate 
therefore  went  out  unto  them,  and  saith.  What  accu- 

30  sation  bring  ye  against  this. man?  They  answered 
and  said  unto  him,  If  this  man  were  not  an  evil- 
doer, we  should  not  have   delivered  him  up  unto 

31  thee.  Pila'e  therefore  said  unto  them,  Take  him 
yourselves,  and  judge  him  according  to  your  law. 
The  Jews  said  unto  him.  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to 


tion  that  can  be  escaped  must  be  allowed; 
they  would  not  go  into  the  palace,  'that  they 
might  not  be  defiled,  but  might  eat  the  pass- 
over.'  It  may,  perhaps,  be  said  in  repl^', 
that  if  this  was  their  intention,  it  failed. 
Morning  broke  before  they  left  Pilate,  and 
they  lost  the  opportunity  of  eating.  Pre- 
cisely so.  It  is  probably  one  of  the  very 
thoughts  that  John  wishes  us  to  carry  from 
his  story,  as  he  tells  it.  Instead  of  welcoming 
the  true  Pasclial  Lamb,  these  Jews  rejected 
him.  What  thought  more  in  the  manner  of 
our  Evangelist  than  to  let  us  see  that,  seeking 
to  retain  the  shadow,  and  sacrificing  the  sub- 
stance for  its  sake,  they  lost  not  only  the  sub- 
stance, but  the  shadow  too  (comp.  11 :  48)?" 
I  see  no  insuperable  obstacle  to  this  exposi- 
tion, and  either  this  or  the  preceding  one  is 
preferable  to  any  view  which  makes  the  nar- 
rative of  John  inconsistent  with  that  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels. 

29.  Pilate  then  (or  therefore) — that  is,  be- 
cause the  Jews  were  unwilling  to  enter  the 
prtetorium,  went  out  unto  them.  The  text 
might  be  translated  literally,  went  forth  with- 
out unto  them,  the  circumstance  that  Pilate 
went  quite  outside  the  pnetorium  being  stated 
with  eitiphasis.  What  accusation  brins;  ye 
against  this  man  ?  Whatever  he  may  have 
known  of  their  proceedings  in  the  Sanhedrin, 
or  of  the  grounds  of  their  enmity  to  Christ, 
he  properly  demanded  a  formal  statement  of 
their  charge,  that  he  might  judge  the  accused 
in  a  legal  manner.  Perhaps  the  message  of 
his  wife  had  been  received,  awakening  in  his 
heart  a  desire  to  avoid  any  decision  against 
Jesus.  But  it  is  by  no  means  necessary  to  j 
suppose  this  in  order  to  account  for  his  de- 
mand. He  was  a  ruler,  and  it  was  his  duty 
to  condemn  no  man  without  definite  accusa- 
tion and  proof  of  crime. 

30.  If  he  were  not  a  malefactor.  Bet- 
ter, If  this  ■)nnn  were  not  an  evil  doer.  A 
wholly  indefinite  charge,  affording  evidence 
that  they  knew  of  no  civil  offence  which  he 
had  committed.     But  they  hoped,  by  putting 


on  a  bold  face  and  persisting  in  their  demand, 
to  obtain  the  condemnation  of  Jesus.  We 
would  not  have  delivered  him  up  unto 
thee.  "Of  course  not.  Are  we  not  honora- 
ble men,  rulers  of  the  people,  incapable  of 
uttering  a  false  accusation?  You  may  take 
our  word  for  it,  that  this  man  is  an  evil-doer. 
What  need  of  further  proof?"  But  Pilate, 
perceiving  their  inability  to  bring  any  proper 
charge  against  Jesus,  and  discovering,  per- 
haps, the  cause  of  their  hatred  of  him  ;  at  all 
events  influenced  bj'  their  reply,  said  unto 
them : 

31.  Take  ye  him,  (or,  Take  him  yourselves), 
and  judge  him  according  to  your  law. 
From  these  words  of  the  Roman  j)rocurator, 
two  things  may  be  inferred  :  (1)  that  he  did 
not  believe  Jesus  to  have  committed  any  crime 
against  the  laws  of  the  State,  and  (2)  that  he 
did  not  believe  him  to  have  done  anything 
worthy  of  death,  even  if  he  had  broken  some 
Jewish  law.  For  he  would  not  have  delivered 
a  man  guiltj'  of  a  civil  offence  into  the  hands 
of  the  Sanhedrists  for  trial  and  punishment, 
nor  would  he  have  comitiitted  an3'  man  whom 
he  thought  worthy  of  deatii  to  a  court  which 
had  no  right  to  inflict  capital  punishment. 
There  maj'  have  been  a  touch  of  irony  in  the 
language  of  Pilate,  especiallj'  if  he  knew 
already,  or  suspected,  that  they  were  seeking 
the  life  of  Jesus.  At  all  events,  his  words 
constrained  them  to  avow  their  purpose,  and 
to  confess  their  dependence  on  him  for  its 
accomplishment.  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to 
put  any  man  to  death.  This  language  is 
unqualified.  And,  according  to  the  Talmud, 
the  Jews  had  been  deprived  of  the  right  to 
inflict  capital  punishment  forty  j'ears  before 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Whether  this 
statement  is  correct  as  to  the  matter  of  time 
or  not,  the  language  of  the  Jews  in  this  pas- 
sage proves  that  they  could  not  in  their  own 
right  inflict  the  punishment  of  death.  The 
passages  which  are  sometimes  alleged  to  prove 
that  they  had  this  power  (viz.,  Johns :  3, 59;  7:  25. 

Acts  5:  33;  7:  57,  sq. ;  21:  27,  sq.j,  merely  shoW  that  the 


Ch.  XVIIL] 


JOHN. 


365 


32  "  That  the  saying  of  Jesus  might  be  fulfilled,  which 
he  spake,  siguiiying  what  death  he  should  die. 

3:5  'Then  Pilate  uut<red  iuto  the  judguieut  hall  again, 
and  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  the  king  of  the  Jews' 

34  Jesus  answered  him,  Sayest  thou  this  thing  of 
thyself,  or  did  others  tell  it  thee  of  me? 

35  Pilate  answered.  Am  I  a  Jew?  Thine  own  nation 
and  the  chief  priests  have  delivered  thee  unto  me ; 
what  hast  thou  done? 


32  put  any  man  to  death :  tliat  the  word  of  Jesus  niiuht 
be  fulfilled,  which  he  spake,  signifying  l)y  what  man- 
ner of  death  he  should  die. 

33  Pilate  therefore  entered  again  into  the  iPraitori- 
um,  and  called  Jesu.s,  and  said  unto  him.  Art  tliuu 

.34  the  King  of  the  Jews?  Jesus  answered,  Sayest  thou 
this  of  tliyself,  or  did  others  tell  it  thee  concerning 

35  me?  Pilate  answered.  Am  I  a  Jew?  Thine  owa 
nation  and  the  cnief  priests  delivered  thee  unto  me : 


oMatt.  20:  19;  ch.  12:  32,  33 6  Matt.  27  :  11. 1  Or,  pala 


Roman  governors  sometimes  winked  at  acts  of 
violence. 

32.  That  the  saying  of  Jesus  might  be 
fulfilled,  etc.  Tiie  Greek  term,  translated 
saying,  maj'  be  rendered  word,  and  the  word 
of  Jesus,  to  which  the  Evangelist  refers,  may 
probably  be  seen  in  12:  32  f.,  or,  possibly,  in 
Matt.  20:  19.  Note  how  careful  the  Evan- 
gelist is  to  remind  his  readers  of  the  infalli- 
ble truth  of  all  that  Jesus  had  said.  Eders- 
heim  remarks  that  this  statement  "seems  to 
imply  that  the  Sanhedrin  might  have  found 
a  mode  of  putting  Jesus  to  death  in  the  same 
informal  manner  in  which  Stephen  was  killed, 
and  they  sought  to  destroy  Paul.  The  Jewish 
law  recognized  a  form  of  procedure,  or  rather 
a  want  of  procedure,  when  a  person  who  was 
caught  in  flagrante  delicto  of  blasphemy, 
might  be  doomed  to  death  without  further  in- 
quiry." But  in  such  a  case  the  process  was 
not  crucifixion,  but  stoning.  Hence  the  an- 
swer of  the  Jews  to  Pilate  was  an  important 
link  in  the  chain  of  events  by  which  the  pre- 
diction of  Jesus  as  to  the  manner  of  his  death 
was  fulfilled. 

33-37.    Ik  the  Pr^torium. 

33.  Then  Pilate  (or,  Pilate,  therefore), 
entered  into  the  judgment  hall  again. 
His  doing  this  was  a  result  of  the  persistency 
of  the  Jews,  and  of  their  confession  that  they 
could  not  legally  punish  Jesus  as  they  affirmed 
he  ought  to  be  punished.  Jesus  was  already 
in  theprsetorium,  but  Pilate,  taking  his  official 
seat,  called  him  near  and  asked  this  question, 
Art  thou  the  king  of  the  Jews?  The  order 
of  the  Greek  words  is  striking.  "  Thou — so 
humble,  modest,  gentle,  peaceable,  unarmed 
— art  the  king  of  the  Jews?  The  emphasis 
falls  on  the  first  word,  thou  ;  but  whether  the 
tone  was  one  of  wonder  simply,  or  of  surprise, 
mingled  with  contempt,  it  is  impossible  to  say. 

34.  Sayest  thou  this  thing  of  thyself, 
or  did  others  tell  it  thee  of  me  ?  By  these 
words  Jesus  calls  Pilate's  attention  to  the 
source  from  which  the  charge  which  he  had 


virtually  made  (ver.  33,)  had  come  to  him,  that 
is,  not  from  his  own  knowledge  and  judgment, 
but  from  the  Jews ;  and  for  this  reason  it 
should  be  .suspected  by  him.  As  if  he  had 
said  to  Pilate:  "Am  I  to  consider  this  que.s- 
tion,  (and  accusation),  as  one  that  has  sprung 
from  your  own  mind,  in  view  of  my  conduct, 
or  as  something  which  would  not  have  occur- 
red to  yourself,  but  has  been  put  in  your  lips 
by  others?"  Thus  interpreted,  there  seems 
to  be  in  the  question  of  Jesus  a  courteous  sug- 
gestion that  Pilate  was  already  allowing  him- 
self to  be  made  a  tool  of  by  the  Jews,  and  at 
the  same  time  a  virtual  appeal  to  his  self-re- 
spect and  sense  of  justice  as  a  magistrate. 
Meyer  says  that  "  Jesus  merely  insists  on  his 
right  to  know  the  author  of  the  accusation 
which  lay  in  the  words  of  Pilate"  ;  but  this 
he  already  knew,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  see  what 
object  would  be  gained  by  having  Pilate  for- 
mally admit  the  fact.  Other  interpreters, 
mindful  of  the  following  context,  think  that 
Jesus  sought  by  his  response  to  direct  the  gov- 
ernor's mind  to  the  ambiguity  of  the  charge, 
to  the  possibility  of  a  double  sense  in  the  title, 
the  king  of  the  Jews,  which  he  had  borrowed 
from  others — thus  preparing  the  way  for  the 
distinction  which  Jesus  himself  was  about  to 
make  between  civil  and  spiritual  kingship. 
This,  however,  does  not  seem  to  be  the  most 
obvious  sense  of  the  Lord's  answer,  and  there 
is  no  suflScient  reason  for  departing  from  that 
sense, 

35.  Am  I  a  Jew?  "With  a  measure  of 
contempt;  as  if  the  idea  that  he,  the  Eoman 
procurator,  had  the  character  or  spirit  of  a 
Jev),  were  absurd;  and  as  if  none  but  a  Jew 
could  feel  any  concern  about  a  vain  aspirant, 
an  unarmed  pretender  to  the  throne  of  Israel. 
Thus  Pilate  virtually  admits  that  Jesus  had 
done  nothing  which  a  Roman  governor  would 
be  likely  to  fear  or  punish  ;  had  raised  no 
sedition,  created  no  disturbance,  broken  no 
law.  And,  as  if  he,  the  haughty  Roman, 
would  make  some  excuse  for  even  repeating. 


366 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVIII. 


36  "Jesus  answered,  'My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world:  if  uiy  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then  would 
my  servants  tight,  that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the 
Jews:  but  now  is  my  kingdom  not  from  hence. 

37  Pilate  therefore  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  a  king 
then?  Jesus  answered,  Thou  sayest  tliat  I  am  a  king. 
To  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause  came  1  into 
the  world,  that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth. 
Every  one   that  ''is   of  the  truth    heareth   my   voice. 


36  what  hast  thou  done  ?  Jesus  answered,  My  king- 
dom is  not  of  this  world :  if  my  kingdom  were  of 
this  world,  then  would  my  i  servants  tight,  that  I 
should  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews  :  but  now  is  my 

37  kingdom  not  from  hence.  Pilate  therefore  said  unlo 
him.  Art  thou  a  king  then  ?  Jesus  answered,  i  Thou 
sayest  it,  for  I  am  a  king.  To  this  end  have  I  been 
born,  and  to  this  end  am  I  come  into  the  world,  that 
I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth.     Every  one 


a  1  Tim.  6:  13. ...6  Dan.  2  :  44  ;  7: 


14;  Luke  12:  14;  ch.  6:  15;  8:  15.... c  ch.  8:  47;  1  John  3  :  19; 
18,  22 2  Or,  J%ou  sayest  that  I  am  a  king. 


.3,12, 


such  an  accusation,  he  reminds  Jesus  that  it 
originated  witli  his  own  people.  Thine  own 
nation — who  may  certainly  be  supposed  un- 
willing to  injure  one  of  their  race,  and  the 
chief  priests — who  are  the  leaders  of  the 
people  and  men  of  high  repute  among  you — 
have  delivered  thee  unto  me.  This, 
assuredly,  was  a  plausible  justification  of  his 
course ;  but  it  was  far  enough  from  being  even 
a  hint  that  he  supposed  Jesus  to  be  guilty  of 
any  crime  against  the  State.  Yet,  there  must 
be  some  exjjlanation  of  the  charge;  Jesus 
must  have  done  something  which  had  moved 
the  chief  priests  to  conspire  against  him 
and  deliver  him  up  as  a  criminal  to  the  civil 
power.  And,  therefore,  Pilate  again  ques- 
tions the  prisoner  before  him.  What  hast 
thou  done?  "That  is,  to  turn  those  who 
would  naturally  favor  thee,  into  relentless 
enemies?" — Westcott.  There  seems  to  have 
been  nothing  unjust  or  overbearing  in  this 
question,  and  it  gave  to  Jesus  a  favorable 
opportunity  to  set  forth  briefly  the  nature  of 
his  mission,  his  claims,  and  his  authority.  Of 
course,  the  form  of  his  answer  was  determined 
by  the  accusation  which  had  been  made. 

36.  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world. 
This  is  equivalent  to  saj'ing :  "  I  have  a  king- 
dom, one  that  is  emphatically  and  distinctly 
mine  (observe  the  Greek,  ^  pao-iAeia  ii  e/utrj),  but 
it  is  not  of  this  world — its  source  and  charac- 
ter are  unlike  those  of  any  earthly  kingdom." 
By  this  language  Jesus  sought  to  accomplish 
two  things :  .;??-s^,  to  suggest  to  Pilate  a  rea- 
sonable explanation  of  the  enmity  which  led 
the  chief  priests  to  seek  his  life,  and  also  of 
the  form  which  they  had  at  last  given  to  their 
accusation;  and,  second,  to  convince  Pilate 
that  he  had  made  no  claim  to  civil  authority. 
And  we  maj'  be  certain  that  the  simplicity, 
sincerity,  and  holy  dignity  of  Jesus,  gave 
peculiar  force  to  his  testimony.  Yet,  having 
in  mind  the  character  of  Pilate,  and  especially 
his  lack  of  spiritual  insight,  Jesus  proceeded 


to  show  that  his  words  in  disclaiming  political 
aims  must  be  true,  because  they  were  con- 
firmed by  the  conduct  of  his  followers.  If 
my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then 
would  my  servants  fight.  "Therefore,  it 
cannot,  as  I  have  said,  be  of  this  world." 
The  expression,  translated,  Avould — fight, 
describes  a  continuous  and  violent  struggle 
for  superiority  {iiy<aviinvTo) :  thej'  "would  be 
striving,"  (comp.  Luke  13:  24;  1  Cor.  9:  25; 
1  Tim.  6:  12;  2  Tim.  4:7);  that  is,  acting  the 
part  of  soldiers  in  a  fierce  conflict.  "The}' 
would  have  resisted  my  arrest  at  the  outset, 
and  would  have  continued  their  resistance 
until  now."  This  was  a  simple  appeal  to 
facts,  such  as  Pilate  ought  to  have  compre- 
hended, and  probably  did  comprehend.  For 
he  knew  that  the  servants  of  Jesus  had  not 
used  force  or  violence  to  prevent  bis  arrest, 
and  were  not  using  force  to  rescue  him  from 
the  Jews.  And  this  ought  of  itself  to  have 
satisfied  the  procurator  that  Jesus  was  not 
seeking  to  establish  an  earthly  kingdom. 
This,  too,  is  what  Jesus  solemnly  re-af8rms  in 
the  last  clause  of  the  verse :  but  now  is  my 
kingdom  not  from  hence.  After  remind- 
ing Pilate  of  what  his  servants  would  have 
done  if  his  kingdom  had  been  of  an  earthly  na- 
ture, he  denies  again  that  it  has  such  an  origin 
or  nature:  "but  in  reality,  as  the  case  stands, 
my  kingdom  is  not  from  this  earthly  source." 
This,  indeed,  is  wholly  negative  in  form;  but 
if  we  bear  in  mind  all  the  circumstances 
known  to  Pilate  and  the  transparent  sincerity 
of  Christ,  it  will  be  impossible  to  doubt  that 
it  had  also  a  positive  significance,  that  it  sug- 
gested an  authority  whose  origin  was  divine — 
a  kingdom  which  was  religious,  instead  of 
secular.  But,  how  little  appreciation  of  such 
a  kingdom  had  the  Roman  givernor!  For, 
in  consequence  (ovv)  of  what  Jesus  had  said, 
he  addressed  him  with  these  words,  contain- 
ing a  spice  of  ironj' : 
37.  Art  thou   a  king,  then?     Meaning: 


Ch.  XVIII.] 


JOHN. 


367 


"Thou  considerest  thyself  a  king,  then,  dost 
thou?"     For  Jesus  had  evidently  assented  to 
the   charge   so  far  as  to  assume  that  he  had 
some  sort  of  kingly  position,    though   it  was 
"not  of  this   world."     And,  looking  at   the 
man  before  him,  unarmed,  unsupported,  de- 
serted, the  proud  officer  could  not,  or  did  not, 
repress  the  feeling  of  contempt  which  such  a 
claim  excited.     For  there  is  reason  to  infer 
from  the  position  of  the  pronouii  thou,  at  the 
end  of  the  Greek  sentence,  that  it  was  added 
contemptuously:   "Thou,  a  helple«s  prisoner, 
a   poor  Jew,   without    friends,    even    among 
thine    own     people — thou,    a   king!"      How 
little,    then,   could    Pilate   have  seen   in   the 
prisoner  before  him  !     How  faint  an  impres- 
sion of  that  divine  love  and  life  which  dwelt 
in  the  Son  of  God,  was  made  on  his  worldly 
nature!     How  impossibe  for  this  representa- 
tive of  Caesar  to  conceive  of  moral  supremacy ! 
The  world  in  which  he  lived  was  almost  infi- 
nitely distant  from  the  wcrld  in  which  Christ 
lived.     But,  though  with  a  tone  of  contempt, 
he   had   nevertheless  uttered   the  truth,  and 
Jesus  had  but  to  assert  this  in  order  to  assert 
his  kingship.     Thou  sayest  that   I   am   a 
king.      Thus   Jesus   adopts   the   language  of 
Pilate  as  an  expression  of  the  truth.     Paying 
no  attention  to  the  sarcastic  tone  of  the  gov- 
ernor's   remark,    he    promptly    and    calmly 
assents  to  it  as  correct.     But  several  interpret- 
ers— ie.  g.,  Meyer,  Alford,  Luthardt) — main- 
tain that  the  last  part  of  this  sentence  is  con- 
firmatory  of   the    first,    thus:     Thou    sayest 
— (i.  e.,  rightly),  because  I  am  a  king — inter- 
preting the  Greek  particle  (on)  as  meaning 
because,   ratlier  than   that.     We   regard    this 
interpretation  as  improbable;  nay,  the  words 
of  Westcott  concerning  it  are  scarcely  too 
positive,  that  it  "seems  to  be  both  unnatural 
as  a  rendering  of  the   original   phrase,  and 
alien  from  the  context."    With  either  version, 
however,  (viz.,  the  common   or  the  one  pro- 
posed), the  meaning  of  Jesus  is  substantially 
the  same;  for,  with  either  version,  he  claims 
to  be  a  king,  and  repeating  his  claim,  pro- 
ceeds to  explain  the  real  nature  of  his  regal 
authority   and  control  over  men.      To   this 
end — that  is,  for  this  very  purpose,  namely, 
that  I  might  be  a  king — was  I  born,  or,  have 
I  been  born.     (Rev.    Ver. )      Jesus   evidently 
means  to  say,  that  his   birth   as  a   man  was 
■with  a  distinct   view  in  the   divine  mind  to 


his   kinglj"^  office,  that  he  was  a  pre.lestinod 
ruler,  and  that,  should  he  fail  of  exercising 
regal  authority  over  men,   he  would  fail  of 
accomplishing  the   end   of  his  being.      This 
clause  is,  therefore,  as  we   understand  it,  an 
emphatic,  though   brief,    confirmation  of  his 
previous  statement.     "  Ciirist  not  only  affirms 
the  fact  of  his  kingship,  but  also   bases  the 
fact   upon  the  essential  law  of  his  being."  — 
Westcott.     And  for  this  cause  :    the  same 
Greek   expression   as    before    (eis   toDto),    and 
meaning,  for  this  end,  pur])Ose,  object;  more' 
briefly,  for  this :  came  I  into  the  world. 
In  this  clause,  also,  the  verb  is  in  the  perfect 
tense,  and  should  be  translated  (as  in  the  Rev. 
Ver.),  am  I  cone  into  the  world.    The  expres- 
sion ditfers  from  the  foregoing,  in  that  it  as- 
sumes the  fact  of  Christ's  pre-existence  and 
the  fact  of  his  superhuman  nature  as  well. 
That    I    should    bear    witness     to     the 
truth.     This  clause  is  also  declarative  of  the 
purpose   for   which    he    had    come    into  the 
world,   and  is,   therefore,    equivalent  to    his 
reigning  as  king.     He  came  into  the  world  in 
order  to  reign  as  king:    he  came  into  the 
world  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth.    And  these 
two  purposes  are  one.     The  latter  specifies  the 
way  in  which  the  former  is  to  be  done.     "He 
has  indeed  a  kingdom;  but  .  .  .  his  kingdom 
is  to  be  established  by  his  witness  of  the  eter- 
nal   truth,    which   he    had   known   with   his 
Father,  and  which  he  alone  could  declare  to 
men." — Watkins.      In    other    words,    Christ 
came  to  reign  over  men  by  the  power  of  truth. 
Hence,  all  those  who  are  willing  to  be  gov- 
erned by  the  highest  truth,  submit  joyfully 
to  him.     Every   one  that  is  of  the  truth 
heareth  my  voice.     To  be  of  the  truth  is  to 
draw  one's  inspiration  from  it,  just  as  to  be  of 
God,  is  to  be  controlled  by  influences  coming 
from   him.      But  the  truth   is   precisely   that 
part  of  all  truth  which  reveals  God  and  his 
salvation  ;  that  part  of  all  truth  which  is  of 
supreme  interest  to  man,  as  a  moral  and  re- 
ligious being,  capable  of  knowing  and  loving 
the   Most   High.     And   to  hear  the  voice  of 
Jesus  is,  of  course,  to  hearken   to  his  words 
and  obey  his  will.     Over  every  one  who  thus 
hears  his  voice  he  reigns   as  king,   in  a  far 
higher  and    more  absolute  sense   than    any 
earthly  monarch  rules  over  his  subjects.    "The 
nature  of  Christ's  kingdom  may  be  expressed 
in  a  word,  by  calling  it  spiritual.    It  embraces 


368 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XVIII. 


38  Pilate  saith  unto  him,  What  is  truth  ?  And  when 
he  had  said  this,  he  went  out  again  unto  the  Jews,  and 
saith  unto  them,  "I  find  in  hiiu  no  fault  at  all. 

39  '  But  ye  have  a  custom,  that  I  should  release  unto 
you  one  at  the  passover:  will  ye  therefore  that  I  release 
unto  you  the  King  of  the  Jews  ? 


38  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice.    Pilate  saith 
unto  him,  What  is  truth? 

And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  went  out  again 
unto  the  Jews,  and  saith  unto  them,  I  find  no  crime 

39  in  him.     But  ye  have  a  custom,  that  I  should  release 
unto  you  one  at  the  passover :  will  ye  therefore  that 


o  Matt.  27  :  24 ;  Luke  2:i :  4  ;  ch.  19 :  4,  6 b  Matt.  27  :  15 ;  Mark  15 :  6 ;  Luke  23  :  17. 


those,  and  only  those,  who  are  poor  in  spirit, 
who  have  been  born  of  the  Spirit,  .  .  .  and 
who  worship  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  (Matt. 

5:  3;  Joha3:  3,5;  4:24;  Rom.8:9.)        The     Ivillgdom    of 

God  is  not  eating  and  drinking,  but  righteous- 
ness and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 
(Rom.  14:17.)  It  is  not  of  this  world.  (Ver.  se.)  It 
is  related  to  heaven,  rather  than  to  earth,  in 
its  principles  and  spirit,  and  its  consumma- 
tion here  would  make  the  society  of  earth  as 
loyal  to  God  and  as  blessed  in  his  service,  as 
that  of  heaven."   (Matt.  6:io.) 

38.  What  is  truth?  The  motive  and  spirit 
of  this  question  can  only  be  conjectured.  But 
from  all  that  is  known  of  Pilate's  character, 
as  well  as  from  the  circumstance  that  he 
waited  for  no  answer,  it  may  be  regarded  as 
probable  that  he  now  thought  of  Jesus  as  a 
harmless  enthusiast,  whom  he  could  dismiss 
with  an  impatient  intimation  of  his  own  skep- 
ticism as  to  the  possibility  of  any  man's  know- 
ing truth  from  falsehood,  or  as  to  the  import- 
ance of  truth,  if  it  could  be  known.  Of 
course,  he  referred  to  truth  in  itself,  to  truth 
as  an  objective  reality,  and  not  to  veracity  in 
the  intercourse  of  man  with  man  ;  for  of  the 
importance  of  the  latter,  no  practical  Koman 
could  well  speak  with  contempt.  "Some 
critics  have  asserted  that  the  writer  of  this 
Gospel  must  have  drawn  upon  his  imagina- 
tion for  the  colloquy  between  Pilate  and  Jesus 
in  the  prjetorium.  But  there  is  no  sufficient 
reason  for  this  assertion.  John  may  not  have 
shared  the  scruples  of  the  Sanhedrists  about 
entering  the  judgment-hall  of  Pilate,  but,  in- 
fluenced bj'  his  great  love  for  Chrjst,  may 
have  followed  him  quietly  into  the  hall,  and 
have  listened  there  to  all  that  was  said.  Or, 
he  may  have  learned  the  substance  of  the 
governor's  questions,  and  of  his  Master's  an- 
swers, from  some  of  Pilate's  attendants. 
Hence,  there  is  no  special  reason  for  denying 
the  accuracy  of  his  narrative  in  this  place." 

Outside  the  prc^torium.  Having  thus  ter- 
minated his  examination  of  Jesus,  he  went 
out  again  unto  the  Jews,  who  had  re- 
mained   near    the  prgetorium,   awaiting  im- 


patiently the  result  of  his  interview  with  the 
object  of  their  hatred.  And  saith  unto 
them,  I  find  in  him  no  fault.  The  Kevised 
Version  translates  this  clause,  I  find  no  crim,e 
in  him.  And  the  word  crime  represents  the 
original  word  more  accuratelj^  than  the  word 
fault,  (conip.  Matt.  27:  37;  Ma'rk  15:  26; 
Acts  13:  28;  28:  18,  with  19:  4,  bebjw).  It 
is  also  noticeable  that  the  pronoun,  I,  is  em- 
phatic, so  that  Pilate  contrasts  his  own  judg- 
ment with  that  of  the  Jews.  "  You  have  ac- 
cused him  of  evil-doing  worthy  of  death,  but 
I,  upon  examination,  find  in  him  no  ground 
for  your  accusation,  no  crime  deserving  pun- 
ishment." 

At  this  point,  as  is  generally  supposed,  took 
place  tiie  sending  to  Herod,  related  by  Luke 
(23:  4-12).  "The  sending  to  Herod,  which 
Luke  adds  to  this  declaration  of  innocence, 
and  by  which  Pilate  tries  to  withdraw  himself 
from  the  business  which  is  so  annoying  to 
him,  is  passed  over  by  John,  because  it  was 
only  an  episode,  which  had  no  significance  for 
the  real  progress  of  the  case,  and  which  pro- 
duced no  change  in  Pilate's  mood.  Hence, 
John  could  proceed  without  interruption  to 
the  offer  Pilate  made." — Luthardt. 

39.  But  ye  have  a  custom — though  this 
custom  is  not  mentioned  by  profane  histori- 
ans. Yet,  the  passover  was  certainly  a  very 
appropriate  time  for  showing  mercy  and  let- 
ting the  prisoner  go  free;  and  the  uncontra- 
dicted testimony  of  the  Evangelists  is  ample 
proof  of  its  existence,  during  the  governor- 
ship of  Pilate.  According  to  the  narrative  of 
Mark,  the  people  first  applied  to  the  procura- 
tor for  the  release  of  a  prisoner  to  them,  "as 
he  had  ever  done  unto  them,"  (Marki5:8),  and 
it  has  been  thought  that  some  of  them,  as  well 
as  Pilate  himself,  may  have  hoped  that  Jesus 
would  be  .selected,  and  his  life  saved.  Vain 
hope  !  As  to  this  expedient  for  saving  the  life 
of  Jesus,  Alford  says,  none  too  sharply :  "His 
conduct  presents  a  pitiable  specimen  of  the 
moral  weakness  of  that  spirit  of  wordly  power 
which  reached  its  culminating  point  in  the 
Roman   Empire."      Alas,  there  is   reason  to 


Ch.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


369 


40  "Then  cried  they  all  again,  saying,  Not  this  man,  l  43  I  release  unto  you  the  King  of  the  Jews?    They 
but  Barabbas.    'Now  Barabbas  was  a  robber.  cried  out  therefore  again,  saying.  Not  this  man,  but 

I       Barabbas.     Now  Barabbas  was  a  robber. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

THEN   =  Pilate  therefore   took   Jesus,  and  scourged  I    1     Then  Pilate  therefore  took  Jesus,  and  scourged 
him.  I 

a  Acts  S :  14. ... 6  Luke  23 :  19. . . .e  Matt.  20 :  19 ;  27 :  26 ;  Mark  15 :  15 ;  Lake  18 :  33. 


believe  that  many  a  ruler  in  modern  times 
has  just  as  little  firmness  in  maintaining  the 
right  as  was  exliibited  by  this  pagan  magis- 
trate in  dealing  with  the  Jews.  He  was  ready 
to  do  justice,  if  it  would  not  cost  him  too 
much  ;  but  he  was  not  ready  to  do  justice  at 
a  very  great  personal  sacrifice.  Will  ye 
therefore  that  I  release  unto  you  the 
king  of  the  Jews?  There  is  certainly  con- 
tempt in  calling  Jesus  "  the  king  of  the  Jews." 
And  probably  the  contempt  was  for  the  Jews, 
who  had  undertaken  to  treat  as  a  serious  mat- 
ter the  claims  of  so  upright  and  harmless  an 
enthusiast  for  truth,  as  Jesus  had  appeared  to 
be  in  the  eyes  of  Pilate.  According  to  Mat- 
thew, Pilate  himself  suggested  the  name  of 
Barabbas,  a  notorious  criminal,  as  an  alterna- 
tive to  that  of  Jesus — in  the  hope,  no  doubt, 
that  the  people  would  be  ashamed  to  ask  favor 
for  such  a  man,  rather  than  .Jesus.  (Matt.  27:  17.) 
There,  also,  we  are  inforined  that  "the  chief 
priests  and  the  elders  persuaded"  the  people 
to  ask  Barabbas  instead  of  the  Christ.  It  is, 
therefore,  plain  that  "the  multitudes"  were 
not  all  of  one  mind  at  first,  and  that  the  nar- 
rative of  John  is  extremely  condensed. 

40.  Then  cried  they  all  again  :  or.  They 
C7-ied  out  therefore  again. — Rev.  Ver.  The 
word  all  is  not  found  in  the  earliest  manu- 
scripts, and  is  probably  an  addition  to  the  text. 
The  word  again  implies  that  this  was  not  the 
first  time  thej'  had  shouted  forth  their  answer 
to  nearl}'^  the  same  question ;  and,  as  this  is  the 
first  instance  mentioned  by  .John,  it  implies 
also  the  condensation  of  his  narrative  referred 
to  under  verse  39.  Many  particulars,  evi- 
dently known  to  the  writer,  were  omitted  for 
the  sake  of  brevity,  some  of  them,  perhaps, 
because  they  were  familiar  to  Christians 
through  the  other  Gospels.  For  this  portion 
of  the  trial  of  .Jesus,  see  also  Matt.  27 :  15-26; 
Mark  15:  6-15;  Luke  23:  13-25.  Now 
Barabbas  was  a  robber.  Mej'er  calls  this 
"a  tragic  comment. " 
nificant. 


this  notorious  criminal  was  a  Jewish  zealot, 
whose  lawless  violence  was  half  atoned  for  in 
the  eyes  of  his  countrymen  by  his  bitter  hatred 
of  foreign  domination.  From  Mark  15:  7, 
we  learn  that  he  had  been  joined  with  others 
in  sedition  and  murder;  yet,  this  may  have 
been,  in  the  circumstances,  what  seemed  to 
his  brethren  ail  apology  for  his  conduct.  In 
reality,  however,  he  was  a  robber  and  a  mur- 
derer; for  not  only  Mark  in  his  Gospel,  but 
Peter  in  his  address  to  the  people  in  tiie  temple 
(Aots3:  14),  aflSrms  this:  "Ye  denied  the  Holy 
and  Righteous  One,  and  asked  for  a  murderer 
to  be  granted  unto  you." — Rev.  Ver.  And 
here  John,  with  crushing  simplicity,  says, 
"Now  Barabbas  was  a  robber" — a  case  of 
meiosis,  in  which  the  writer  says  less  than 
he  might,  knowing  that  his  readers  will  fill 
out  the  meaning. 


Ch.  19 :  1-3.  Scourging  and  Mocking 
OF  Jesus. 

1.  Then  Pilate  therefore  took  Jesus, 
and  scourged  him.  The  word  therefore, 
represents  the  action  of  Pilate  as  a  conse- 
quence of  his  failure  to  induce  the  .Jews  to 
make  choice  of  .Jesus,  instead  of  Barabbas.  as 
the  object  of  their  passover  clemency.  By 
selecting  Barabbas,  they  virtually  insisted  on 
the  condemnation  and  death  of  Jesus.  And, 
according  to  the  first  three  Evangelists,  they 
did  this  in  express  terms,  calling  out  passion- 
ately for  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  (See  Matt. 
27  :  22,  23;  Mark  15:  13,  14;  Luke  23:  21,  23.) 
But  the  procurator  did  not  yield  to  them  so 
far  as  to  sentence  .Jesus  at  once  to  the  death  of 
the  cross,  yet  he  did  yield  to  them  so  far  as  to 
order  the  scourging  preliminary  to  cruci- 
fixion, as  if  he  intended  to  comply  with  their 
demand  for  the  latter.  As  the  sequel  shows, 
he  hoped  that  "the  horrors  of  the  scourging 
might  still  move  the  people  to  desist  froin  the 
ferocious  cry  for  the  cross." — Edersheim,. 
Its  very  brevity  is  sig-  I  But  his  consent  to  injustice  demonstrated  his 
How,  then,  could  he  have  been  moral  weakness;  and,  however  heart-rending 
selected  by  tiie   people?     It  is  possible  that  I  might  be  the  suffering  caused  by  scourging, 


370 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


2  And  the  soldiers  platted  a  crown  of  thorns,  and 
put  it  ou  his  head,  and  they  put  on  him  a  purple  robe, 

3  And  said,  Hail,  ICiug  of  the  Jews!  and  they  smote 
him  with  their  hauds. 


2  him.     And  the  soldiers  plaited  a  crown  of  thorns, 
and  put  it  on  his  head,  and  arrayed  him  in  a  purple 

3  garment;  and  they  came  unio  him,  and  said,  Hail, 
King  of  the  Jews !  and  they  struck  him  ^  with  their 


there  was  no  good  reason  to  expect  that  it 
would  satisfy  the  infuriated  populace.  Spur- 
red on  by  the  priests,  they  had  cried  out 
again  and  again  for  the  most  ignominious 
and  terrible  punishment,  and  nothing  less 
than  this  would  now  meet  their  demands.  As 
to  the  position  for  being  scourged,  we  are  told 
by  Edersheim  that,  "stripped  of  his  clothes, 
his  hands  tied  and  back  bent,  the  victim 
would  be  bound  to  a  column  or  a  stake,  in 
front  of  the  praetorium."  Wescott  says,  that 
"recent  investigations  at  Jerusalem  have 
disclosed  what  may  have  been  the  scene 
of  the  punishment.  In  a  subterranean 
chamber,  discovered  by  Captain  Warren,  on 
what  Mr.  Ferguson  holds  to  be  the  site  of 
Antonia — Pilate's  prsetorium — stands  a  trun- 
cated column,  no  part  of  the  construction ;  for 
the  chamber  is  vaulted  above  the  pillar,  but 
just  such  a  pillar  as  criminals  would  be  tied 
to  to  be  scourged."  Is  it  well  to  associate  the 
Bufferings  of  Christ  with  such  material  ob- 
jects, when  we  can  only  say  that  those  objects 
may  have  been  connected  with  him? 

2.  However  dreadful  may  have  been  the 
phj'sical  pain  endured  by  Jesus,  at  this  time, 
it  did  not  probably  exhaust  his  strength,  or 
disturb  the  equanimity  of  his  spirit.  With 
holy  patience  and  submission  to  his  Father's 
will,  "he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions, 
he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities."  (isa.53:5.) 
He  was  a  silent  sufferer  ;  and  when  released 
from  the  pillar  of  scourging,  was  doubtless 
able  to  stand  without  supi)ort  from  others. 
The  soldiers  platted  a  crown  of  thorns. 
The  Greek  word  signifying,  thorn,  or  thorn- 
bush  {oLKavia),  is  not  sufficiently  definite  to 
authorize  any  positive  statement  as  to  the 
kind  of  shrub  or  tree  from  which  fhe  crown 
was  made.  But,  most  scholars  have  fixed  on 
the  Zizyphns  Spina  Christi,  culled  in  Pales- 
tine the  Nebk  or  Nubk,  as  the  plant  emjjloj^- 
ed.  Geike  says,  that  "One  of  them,  running 
to  the  nearest  open  space,  heightened  the 
coarse  and  shameful  merriment  by  bringing 
in  some  of  the  tough  twigs  of  the  thorny 
Nubk,  which  he  twisted  into  a  mock  laurel 
wreath,  .like  that  worn  at  times  by  the  Caesars, 


and  forced  down,  with  its  close,  sharp  thorns, 
on  our  Saviour's  temples."  And  Watkins 
remarks,  that  "the  shrub  was  likely  enough 
to  be  found  in  the  garden  of  the  prsetorium." 
They  put  on  him  a  purple  robe.  Compare 
Matt.  27:  28.  Plumptre  says,  that  the  "pur- 
ple" of  the  ancients  was  "crimson,"  and  the 
same  color  might  easily  be  called  by  either 
name.  He  also  conjectures,  rather  strangely, 
that  this  robe  "was  probably  some  cast-off 
cloak  of  Pilate's  own,"  while  Geike  assumes, 
that  "instead  of  his  plain  abba  of  linen,  they 
threw  over  his  shoulders  a  scarlet  sagum,  or 
soldier's  cloak^as  a  rough  burlesque  of  the 
long  and  fine  purple  one,  worn  only  by  the 
Emperor."  Matthew  adds  another  feature, 
saying,  that  thej'  put  "a  reed  in  his  hand," 
evidently  as  a  mock  sceptre. 

3.  And  said.  According  to  the  best  manu- 
scripts (N  B  L  U  X  A  n),  and  the  Eevised 
Version,  this  should  read:  And  they  came 
unto  him,  and  said.  Probably  the  first  clause 
was  omitted  from  some  of  the  early  manu- 
scripts, because  it  was  understood  to  affirm 
that  the  soldiers  now  came  to  Jesus  from  some 
remoter  point,  whereas,  the  meaning  is,  that 
they  approached  Jesus  one  after  another,  or, 
kept  coming  to  Jesus,  though  they  were  all 
present  in,  or  near,  the  prKtorium.  As  they 
approached  Jesus,  they  bowed  the  knee,  in 
mock  reverence,  and  said,  Hail,  king  of  the 
JeAVs!  3Iatthew  saj's,  expressly,  that  they 
mocked  him,  with  these  words.  He  also  re- 
lates, as  further  indignities,  that  they  spit 
upon  him,,  and  took  the  reed,  which  they  had 
put  in  his  hand,  and  smote  him  on  the  head. 
But  the  language  of  John,  and  they  smote 
him  with  their  hands,  may  mean  the  same 
as  that  of  Matthew :  for  the  expression 
translated,  smote  him,  with  their  hands, 
signifies,  literally,  were  giving  him,  blows 
(poTrio-naTa),  either  with  the  hand,  or  with  a 
stick.  (See  Note  on  18:  26.)  Notice  also  the 
ten.se  of  the  verb,  which  justifies  the  transla- 
tion, "were  giving,"  or  "kept  giving"  him 
blows,  as  they  continued  their  insulting  hom- 
age. As  usual,  the  narrative  of  John,  though 
brief,  is  very  vivid  and  powerful. 


Ch.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


371 


4  Pilate  therefore  went  forth  again,  and  saith  unto 
them,  Behold,  I  bring  him  iVirlh  to  you,  "that  ye  may 
know  that  I  tiud  no  fault  in  him. 

5  Then  cime  Jesus  forth,  wearing  the  crown  of 
thorns,  and  the  purple  robe.  Aud  Pilaie  saith  unto 
them,  Behold  the  mau ! 


4  hands.  And  Pilate  went  out  again,  and  saith  unto 
them,  Behold,  I  bring  liiiii  out  to  you,  that  ye  may 

5  know  that  I  find  no  crime  in  him.  Jesus  therefore 
came  out,  wearing  the  crown  of  thorns  and  the  pur. 
pie  garment.    And  Pilate  saith  uulo  them,  Behold^ 


4-7.  Pilate's  Third  Attempt  to  Avoid 
Condemning  Jesus. 

As  a  ruler,  Pilate  doubtless  felt  himself 
bound  to  deal  justly  with  the  people,  sentenc- 
ing criminals  to  punishment,  and  absolving 
the  innocent.  Convinced  that  Jesus  was 
guilty  of  no  civil  offence,  he  was,  therefore, 
reluctant  to  sentence  him  to  the  terrible  death 
of  the  cross.  But  there  is 'no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  he  was  moved  by  humane  feelings. 
He  had  probably  witnessed  the  scourging, 
and  had  not  interposed  to  prevent  the  mock- 
ery and  insult  that  followed.  Yet,  it  is  pos- 
sible, that  he  permitted  the  latter,  as  well  as 
ordered  the  former,  with  a  view  to  satisfying 
the  vengeance  of  the  Jews,  and  thus  escaping 
further  importunitj'  to  condemn  the  prisoner, 
whom  he  felt  to  be  innocent. 

4.  Pilate  therefore  went  forth  a§rain. 
According  to  the  text  followed  in  the  Revised 
Version,  the  word  and  should  be  substituted 
for  therefore,  reading,  And  Pilate  went  out 
again.  This  reading  is  probably  correct, 
being  supported  by  A  B  K  L  X  n,  and  nine 
other  uncial  manuscripts.  The  word  again, 
refers  to  what  is  related  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  verse  29.  Many  of  the  Jews  had 
remained  without,  while  Jesus  had  been  with 
Pilate  in  the  prsetorium.  The^'  had  not, 
therefore,  witnessed  the  mocking  of  Christ  by 
the  soldiers,  and,  indeed,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain,  though  perhaps  probable,  that  they 
had  been  spectators  of  the  scourging.  Be- 
hold, I  bring  him  forth  to  you,  that  ye 
may  know  that  I  find  no  fault  in  him. 
The  word  crime  (Revised  Version),  repro- 
duces more  exactly  the  sense  of  the  original, 
than  the  word  fault  (Common  Version.)  By 
scourging  Jesus,  Pilate  had  given  the  people 
to  understand  that  he  considered  him  guilty, 
and  was  about  to  crucify  him.  But  by  bring- 
ing him  before  them  once  more,  instead  ot 
letting  the  execution  go  forward,  he  virtu- 
ally said  that  the  case  was  not  yet  finally 
settled;  that  he  himself  had  not  found  the 
accused  worthy  of  death,  or  guilty  of  any 
crime.     Thus  he  confesses  before  all  the  peo- 


ple that,  influenced  by  their  demand,  he  had 
inflicted  a  dreadful  punishment  on  one  whom 
he  believes  innocent.  It  was  a  shameless 
confession.  And  it  was  not  fitted  to  accom- 
plish his  purpose,  to  pacify  the  people,  or  to 
make  them  desist  from  their  efforts  to  destroy 
Jesus.  Nothing  but  the  rock-like  firmness  of 
an  upright  ruler  is  of  any  avail  against  such 
hatred  as  then  burned  in  the  hearts  of  the 
Jews. 

5.  Then  came  Jesus  forth,  Avearing  the 
criiwn  of  thorns,  and  the  purple  robe. 
At  the  call  of  Pilate,  Jesus  came  out  of  the 
castle  into  the  open  court  before  the  people. 
No  ignominy  was  too  great  for  him  to  bear. 
The  crown  of  thorns  and  the  purple  gar- 
ment testified  plainly  of  the  mockery  to 
which  he  had  been  subjected  Were  there 
any  that  beheld  him  with  reverence  and  love? 
We  may  presume  that  "the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved"  was  within  sight  of  his  Master. 
But  how  many  others  were  there,  whose  love 
to  the  Christ  was  true  and  steadfast,  we  can- 
not even  conjecture.  Nor  is  it  possible  for 
any  one  to  say,  that,  if  there  were  any  true 
hearts  in  that  agitated  throng,  they  were  com- 
forted or  moved  by  a  glance  of  recognition 
from  the  patient  sufferer.  But,  as  Jesus  ap- 
peared, with  the  badges  of  mock  royalty 
upon  him,  and  signs  of  terrible  suffering  in 
his  countenance  and  bearing,  Pilate  saith 
unto  them.  Behold  the  man!  Behold,  is 
not  a  verb,  but  an  interjection — Ecce  Homo! 
Lo,  the  man!  "The  man,  whom  you  have 
asked  me  to  crucify;  the  man,  scourged, 
mocked,  abused,  yet  gentle,  silent,  enduring! 
Lo,  there  he  stands,  an  object  of  pity,  rather 
than  of  fear."  "These  words  of  half-con- 
temptuous pity  were  designed  to  change  the 
fierceness  of  the  spectators  into  compassion."'— 
Westcott.  "  A  man  who  allows  himself  to  be 
treated  thus,  is  surely  a  harmless  fanatic, 
whom  there  is  no  reason  for  killing." — Meyer. 
"See  this  man  who  submits  to  and  has  suf- 
fered these  indignities — how  can  he  ever  stir 
up  the  people,  or  set  himself  up  for  king? 
Now  cease  to  persecute  him :    your  malice 


372 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


6  "When  the  chief  priests  therefore  and  officers  saw 
him,  they  cried  out,  saying,  Crucify  Atwi,  crucify  him. 
Pilate  saith  unto  them.  Take  ye  him,  and  crucily  him: 
for  I  find  no  fault  in  him. 

7  The  Jews  answered  him,  *  We  have  a  law,  and  by 
our  law  he  ought  to  die,  because  <^he  made  himseli  the 
Son  of  God. 


6  the  man !  When  therefore  the  chief  priests  and 
the  oiiicers  saw  him,  they  cried  out,  saying,  Crucify 
hin\,  crucify  him.  Pilate  saith  unto  them,  Take 
him   yourselves,    and    crucify   him;    for   I   tind  no 

7  crime  in  him.  The  Jews  answered  him.  We  have  a 
law,  and  by  that  law  he  ouglit  to  die,  because  he 


a  Acts  3:  13.... 6  Lev.  24:  16....C  Matt.  26:65;  ch.  5:18;  10:33. 


surely  ought  to  be  satisfied. ' '  — Alford.  Geikie'  s 
description  of  the  scene  is  graphic:  "Then 
(Pilate)  turning  to  the  figure  at  his  side, 
drawn  together  with  mortal  agony,  and  look- 
ing at  the  pale,  worn,  and  bleeding  face, 
through  which  there  yet  shone  a  calm  dignity 
and  more  than  human  beauty,  that  had 
touched  his  heart,  and  might  touch  even  the 
heart  of  Jews,  he  added,  'Behold  the  man!' 
Would  they  let  the  scourging  and  mockery 
suffice  after  all?"  But  the  effect  was  not 
-what  the  governor  had  hoped.  He  did  not 
succeeed  in  ridding  himself  of  further  re- 
sponsibility by  causing  Jesus  to  be  scourged, 
by  permitting  him  to  be  mocked,  and  by  pre- 
senting him  to  the  people  as  an  object  of  com- 
passion rather  than  of  dread.  For  religious 
animosity  is  bitter  and  unrelenting,  and  there 
-were  still  in  the  crowd  many  whom  Christ's 
gentleness  and  patience  under  the  crudest 
suffering  could  not  mollify.  They  had  sworn 
to  compass  his  death,  and  they  were  deter- 
mined to  make  it  as  painful  and  ignominious 
as  possible. 

6.  When  the  chief  priests  therefore  and 
(the)  officers  saw  him.  The  officers  here 
mentioned  were  not  those  of  the  governor, 
but  those  of  the  chief  priests,  or  of  the  San- 
hedrin,  and  they  were  naturally  of  one  mind 
with  their  superiors.  They  cried  out,  say- 
ing, Crucify  him,  crucify  him.  Accord- 
ing to  the  highest  critical  authorities,  Tisch- 
endorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort,  the  Ke- 
vised  Version,  and  the  Common  Text,  there  is 
no  pronoun  after  the  word  crucify,  though  as 
to  sense,  it  is  correctly  supplied  in  translation. 
But  in  fact,  the  cry  was  compressed  into  one 
word,  crucify,  crucify !  And  there  is  good 
reason  to  believe  that  intense  and  concentrated 
passion  was  put  into  that  terrible  word.  These 
ring-leaders  of  the  hostile  party,  were  bent 
upon  the  accomplishment  of  their  object,  and 
their  angry  shout  must  have  convinced  Pilate 
that  his  movement  was  a  failure.  His  next 
word,  therefore,  was:  Take  ye  him,  and 
crucify  him  ;   for  I  find  no  fault  in  him  : 


or,  as  in  the  Kevised  Version :  Take  him 
yourselves,  and  crucify  him ;  for  I  find  no 
crime  in  him.  This  may  have  been  uttered  in 
such  a  tone  as  to  imply  that  they  would  do  it 
at  their  peril.  At  any  rate,  it  was  a  manifest 
refusal,  on  the  governor's  part,  to  do  their 
will,  and  a  distinct  declaration  that  they  had 
not  yet  made  out  a  case  against  Jesus.  "Weiss 
maintains  that  "the  procurator  could  have 
given  them  the  right  to  inflict  capital  punish- 
ment (Ewald),  but  crucifixion  was  no  legal 
capital  punishment,  and  they  had  sought  it 
merely  in  order  to  cast  the  odium  of  the  exe- 
cution upon  the  Komans.  He,  therefore,  gives 
the  permission  in  a  form  in  which  they  could 
not  accept  it,  and  the  more,  because  he  assigns 
as  his  motive  the  fact  that  he  regards  Jesus  as 
innocent,  and  so,  must  give  into  their  hands 
the  act  of  slaying  a  guiltless  man."  This 
answer  of  Pilate  led  them  to  bring  forward  a 
new  charge  against  the  Saviour. 

7.  The  Jews  answered  him.  That  is, 
probably,  the  leaders  of  the  people,  who  had 
just  cried  vehemently,  crucify!  crucify! 
For,  as  has  been  frequently  observed,  this 
Evangelist  comrnonlj'  means  by  the  Jews, 
those  leaders  of  the  people  who  were  parti- 
zans  of  Judaism  and  enemies  of  Christ.  We 
have  a  law.  The  pronoun  we,  is  slightly 
empliasized,  because  they  know  and  feel  that 
the  law  to  which  they  refer  is  purely  Jewish, 
and  in  no  sense  binding  on  a  Koman.  Yet, 
as  the  governor  had  pronounced  their  former 
accusation  vain,  they  venture  to  bring  for- 
ward a  law  of  their  own  religion,  in  the  hope 
that  it  will  be  regarded  as  a  justification  of 
their  urgency  in  calling  for  the  crucifixion  of 
Jesus,  and  as  a  prudpntis>l  reason,  if  no  more, 
for  yielding  to  their  demand.  For  they  must 
have  noted  his  half  measures  and  vacillating 
course,  both  in  referring  the  case  to  Herod, 
and  in  causing  Jesus  to  be  scourged ;  and  thej' 
were  determined  to  leave  no  stone  unturned 
in  their  effort  to  secure  the  death  of  Jesus  by 
his  authority.  And  by  our  law  he  ought  to 
die,  because  he  made  himself  the  Son  of 


Ch.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


373 


8  When  Pilate  therefore  heard  that  saying,  he  was 
the  more  al'raid ; 

9  And  went  again  into  the  judgment  liall,  and  saith 
unto  Jesus,  Whence  art  thou?  "But  Jesus  gave  him 
no  answer. 


8  made  himself  the  Son  of  God.    When  Pilate  there- 
lore   heard   this    saying,  he    was   the   mure  alraid: 

9  and    he   entered    into   the   •  Pra;lorium   again,   and 
saith   unto    Jesus,    Whence  art    thou?    But    Jesus 


a  Isa.  53  :  7  ;  Matt.  27  :  I'i,  14. 1  Or,  palace. 


God.  The  law  to  which  they  referred  may 
be  seen  in  Lev.  24:  16:  "  He  tiiat  bhispheinetii 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  he  shall  surely  be  put 
to  death."  For  they  held  that  any  one  who 
claimed  for  him.^elf  divine  prerogatives,  dis- 
honored and  reproached  thereby  the  name  of 
God.  Compare  Matt.  26:  63-66;  Mark  14:  61- 
64.  The  principal  editors  omit  our,  before 
law,  so  that  the  clause  reads:  And  by  that 
law,  or,  more  literally,  according  to  the  law 
— in  question.  But  the  meaning  is  not  much 
affected  by  this  slight  change  in  the  text. 
Again,  there  is  no  article  before  Son,  in  the 
Greek  original,  and,  therefore,  the  last  clause 
may  be  rendered:  because  he  made  himself 
God's  Son.  Or,  Son  of  God,  or,  even,  a  Son 
of  God.  But  there  is  no  probability  that 
either  Jesus  himself  or  the  Jews  meant  by  it 
the  last.  They  used  the  expression  to  signify 
a  special  divine  Sonship,  based  upon  a  special 
union  of  Christ  with  God.  Weiss  supposes 
that  the  Jews  intended  by  this  reply  "simply 
to  defend  themselves  against  the  reproach  of 
desiring  the  death  of  an  innocent  person.'' 
Westcott  thinks  that  they  took  up  Pilate's 
challenge  in  an  unexpected  manner.  "He 
had  said.  Take  him  yourselves.  The^- answer. 
If  you  appeal  to  us,  we  have  a  power  which 
we  have  not  yet  invoked.  We  have  a  law — 
to  which  you  are  bound  to  give  effect,  what- 
ever you  may  think  of  it,  and  according  to 
the  law  he  ought  to  die.  The  emphatic  '  we,' 
answers  at  once  to  the  emphatic  'ye,'  and  to 
the  emphatic  'I,'  of  the  governor."  It  would 
have  been  more  satisfactory  if  Dr.  Westcott 
had  produced  some  evidence  that  a  Roman 
governor  was  "bound  to  give  effect"  to  every 
religious  law  of  a  subject  people,  or  that  the 
Jews  would  have  asserted  this  in  so  high  a 
tone,  if  he  was  not  bound  to  do  it  by  some 
Roman  law  or  imperial  decree. 

8-12.  Pilate  Questions  Jesus  Again, 
AND  Tries  to  Release  Him. 

8.  When  Pilate  therefore  heard  that 
(or,  this)  saying,  he  was  the  more  afraid. 
That  he  was  the  more  afraid,  itnplies  some 
degree  of  fear  previous  to  his  hearing  this 


saying.  Evidently  the  words  and  bearing  of 
the  accused  had  made  an  unusual  impression 
on  his  mind — an  impression  of  incipient  fear. 
He  had  perceived  something  extraordinary 
and  mysterious  in  the  prisoner  by  his  side, 
and  living  in  an  age  of  superstition  as  well  as 
of  skepticism,  the  procurator  was  doubtless 
more  or  less  influenced  by  both.  He  had  be- 
fore recognized  in  Jesus  a  spirit  unlike  that 
of  other  men,  and  now,  learning  that  he 
claimed  to  be  God's  Son,  he  was  the  more 
afraid,  thinking  that  there  might  be  some- 
thing real  back  of  this  claim.  Periiaps  the 
message  from  his  wife:  "Have  thou  notliing 
to  do  with  that  just  man;  for  I  have  suffered 
many  things  this  day  in  a  dream  because  of 
him"  (Matt. 27: 19),  had  contributed  sometliing 
to  his  first  impresssion  of  fear;  for  dreams 
were  often  supposed  to  be  frotii  the  gods. 
That  his  fear  "was  not  a  fear  of  the  Jews,  nor 
of  acting  unjustly,  but  of  the  person  of  Jesus, 
is  evident  from  what  follows." — Alford. 

9.  Whence  art  thou  ?  Having  returned 
with  Jesus  into  the  judgment  hall,  Pilate 
asked  him  this  question,  expecting  to  hear 
from  his  lips  a  statement  concerning  his  ori- 
gin. For  the  accusation,  that  he  made  him- 
self Son  of  God,  suggested  to  the  governor  the 
thought,  that  Jesus  might  claim  to  be  of  heav- 
enly origin,  or,  rather,  perhaps,  of  divine 
origin,  the  reference  being  not  to  place,  but  to 
source.  But  Jesus  gave  him  no  answer. 
Why  this  silence?  Only  a  conjectural  reply 
can  be  given.  Perhaps  it  was,  because  the 
true  answer  to  this  question  would  be  misun- 
derstood by  Pilate.  Perhaps  it  was,  because 
the  true  answer  to  this  question  had  no  proper 
relation  to  the  governor's  duty  at  the  time. 
Perhaps  it  was,  because  the  true  answer  would 
have  tended  to  strengthen  Pilate's  supersti- 
tious feelings,  without  serving  any  good  pur- 
pose. Perhaps  it  was,  because  the  Saviour 
knew  that  his  Father's  will  would  be  accom- 
plished by  silence,  since  Pilate  was  to  be  the 
instrument  of  his  crucifixion.  Weiss  thinks 
the  silence  of  Jesus  is  most  simply  explained, 
by  supposing   "that    an    afiirmative  answer 


374 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


10  Then  saith  Pilate  unto  him,  Speakest  thou  not 
uuto  nie?  knowest  thou  not  that  I  have  power  to  cni- 
cily  thee,  and  have  power  to  release  theeV 

11  Jesus  answered,  "Thou  couldest  have  no  power 
at  all  against  me,  except  it  were  given  thee  from  above: 
therefore  he  that  delivered  me  unto  thee  hath  the 
greater  sin. 


10  gave  him  no  answer.  Pilate  therefore  saith  unto 
him,  Speakest  tliou  not  unto  me?  knowest  thou 
not  that  I  have  i  power  to  release  thee,  and  l:ave 

111  power  to  cruelly  thee?  Jesus  answered  him, 
Thou  wouldest  have  no  i  power  against  me,  ex- 
cept it  were  given  thee  from  above:  therefore  he 
that    delivered    me    uuto    thee    hath    greater   siu 


:  Luke  i'i  :  53  ;  cb.  7  :  30. 1  Or,  authority. 


would  have  been  understood  by  Pilate  in  a 
superstitious  way  only,  and  that  all  the  pre- 
requisites to  further  explanations  were  want- 
ing." 

10.  The  silence  of  Jesus  was  surprising  to 
Pilate,  and  was  construed  as  disrespectful. 
Fully  conscious  of  his  authority  as  a  magis- 
trate representing  the  emperor,  Pilate  re- 
minded Jesus  without  delay  of  that  authority, 
as  if  its  very  extent  must  show  him  the 
temerity  of  his  silence  when  questioned. 
Speakest  thou  not  unto  me?  Observe 
that  the  word  me  is  emphatic,  aiiticijiating 
the  account  of  his  autliority  which  follows. 
Knowest  thou  not  that  I  have  poAver  to 
crucify  thee,  and  have  power  to  release 
thee?  "Reason  enough  why  I  should  be 
treated  with  respect!  Hope  of  life  and  fear 
of  death,  should  certainly  lead  a  subject,  and 
especially  a  subject  accused  of  wrong-doing, 
to  answer  every  question  of  his  judge  with  the 
utmost  deference."  The  word  power  signifies 
authority,  legal  authority,  as  well  as  ability, 
and  here  refers  to  the  legitimate  authority  of 
the  procurator  to  release  or  condemn  the  ac- 
cused. Of  courise,  the  clear  and  sharp  antith- 
esis by  which  he  described  the  extent  of  his 
power  was  suggested  by  the  case  in  hand, 
and  he  doubtless  imagined  that  the  prisoner 
would  be  touched  deeply  hy  this  particular 
description  of  his  power.  How  true  to  nature 
is  this  language  of  the  procurator!  Though 
vacillating  in  purpose,  and  moved  with  some 
degree  of  fear  at  the  extraordinary  claims 
and  bearing  of  Jesus,  he  was  a  proud  Roman 
governor,  read^'  to  assert  the  greatness  of  his 
authority,  and  surprised  that  a  prisoner  should 
seem  indifferent  to  it. 

11.  To  this  boastful,  if  not  threatening, 
language,  Jesus  saw  fit  to  reply.  Yet  not  in 
a  strain  of  apology  or  entreaty,  not  in  words 
expressive  of  either  fear  or  hope,  but  in  terms 
that  refer  to  others  rather  than  to  himself,  and 
that  do  not  yield  their  full  sense  with  readi- 
ness to  the  interpreter.  Thou  couldest  (or, 
wouldest)  have  no  power  at  all  against  me, 


except  it  were  given  thee  from  above: 
therefore  he  that  delivered  me  unto  thee 
hath  the  greater  sin.  There  should  be  no 
article  before  greater  sin,  in  the  English,  as 
there  is  none  in  the  Greek  original.  And  as 
to  the  meaning,  we  find  less  diflSculty  in  com- 
prehending the  object  of  the  first  part  of  this 
a:".swer  than  in  seeing  how  the  last  part  is  a 
natural  inference  from  the  first.  Pilate  had 
claimed  the  power  of  life  and  death  over 
Jesus,  and  in  such  language  as  intimated  that 
any  disrespect  to  himself  might  bring  evil  on 
the  prisoner,  even  though  he  were  innocent. 
Christ  implicitly  concedes  the  governor's 
official  power  to  crucify  him,  but  explicitly 
reminds  him  that  his  power  was  not  self-origi- 
nated and  absolute — a  power  that  he  might 
use  according  to  his  own  will  or  caprice — but, 
on  the  contrary,  that  his  legal  right  to  pro- 
ceed against  his  prisoner,  being  involved  in 
the  office  which  he  providentially  held,  had 
been  given  him  from  above— even  from  God, 
the  source  of  all  rightful  authority.  Onlj' 
under  the  Divine  Ruler  was  he  a  legitimate 
judge,  entitled  to  act  in  the  case  against  Jesus 
— a  view  which  certainly  implied  that  he 
would  have  sin  if  he  should  punish  the  guilt- 
less by  crucifixion.  But,  how  is  the  next 
statement  an  inference  from  this?  From  what 
point  of  view  did  Jesus  regard  this  as  a  rea- 
son for  that?  For  he  added  :  therefore  (that 
is,  on  account  of  this  fact,  which  I  have  now 
stated),  he  that  delivered  me  unto  thee 
hath  the  greater  sin.  The  comparison  in- 
volved in  the  word  greater,  may  be  with  the 
.sin  of  Pilate,  or  with  the  sin  that  would  have 
been  involved  in  the  high  priest's  action,  if 
Pilate's  authority  had  not  been  from  above. 
Let  us  suppose  that  the  comparison  intended 
was  with  the  sin  of  Pilate;  for  this  is  the 
opinion  of  most  interpreters.  On  this  hj'poth- 
esis  Jesus  virtually  said  to  Pilate:  "Because 
you  have  no  official  power  against  me,  save 
that  which  has  been  given  y(^u  as  a  sacred 
trust  from  above,  (the  misuse  of  which  is  sin- 
ful), the  high  priest  who,  with  perfect  indif- 


Ch.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


375 


12  And  from  thenceforth  Pilate  sought  to  release  12  Upon  this  Pilate  sought  to  release  hiiu:  but  the 
hiui:  but  the  ,levvs  cried  out,  saying,  "  11' thou  let  this  I  Jews  cried  out,  saying.  If  thou  release  this  man, 
man  go.  thou  art  not  c  esar's  friuud :  '  whosoever  mak-  thou  are  not  Caesar's  Irieud:  every  one  that  maketh 
eth  hiiusell  a  kiug  spoakelh  aguiust  Cesar.  | 

a  Luke  13:  2 b  Acta  17:  T. 


ference  to  your  abuse  of  that  sacred  trust,  has 
delivered  me  up  to  you,  demanding  without 
cause,  my  crucitixion,  is  guilty  of  greater  sin 
than  you  commit  by  yielding  to  his  demand. 
I  recognize  him  as  the  leader  in  this  desecra- 
tion of  God-given  authority,  and  his  sin  as 
even  greater  than  yours,  though  yours  must 
be  great."  This  interpretation  supposes  that 
the  expression,  delivered  me  unto  thee, 
covers,  and  includes  all  the  implacable  enmity 
and  recklessness  with  which  the  chief  priests, 
(Caiaphas  at  their  head),  handed  over  Jesus 
to  the  Roman  governor,  and  called  for  his 
crucifixion,  even  though  the  governor  found 
no  crime  in  him.  They  urgently  and  persist- 
ently tempted  the  governor  to  misuse  his 
power;  he  slowly  and  reluctantly  yielded  to 
their  temptation.  Both  sinned;  but,  the  di- 
vine sufferer,  who  is  to  be  the  final  Judge  of 
men,  did  not' hesitate  to  tell  the  vacillating 
Pilate  that,  in  the  present  transaction,  some 
of  the  Jews  were  mort  guilty  than  he.  Yet, 
Pilate  had,  without  cause,  inflicted  on  him 
the  awful  punishment  of  scourging!  Surely 
the  words  of  Jesus  must  have  appeared  to 
him  a  most  impartial  Judgment,  at  once  fear- 
less and  true.  For  the  governor  well  knew 
that  no  crime  had  been  proved  against  Jesus, 
and  that  he,  himself,  had  no  right  to  punish 
an  innocent  man  ;  but  he  also  knew  that  he 
had  been  sorely  pressed  by  the  Jews  to  do 
worse  than  he  had  yet  done,  and  that  he  had 
attempted  to  withstand  their  importunity, 
though  with  too  little  moral  firmness.  Such, 
we  believe,  is  the  true  sense  of  this  difficult 
passage.  It  does  not  assume  that  Jesus 
charged  his  Jewish  enemies  with  greater  sin, 
because  they  had  greater  knowledge  of  God 
and  righteousness;  for  this  would  have  liad 
little  meaning  to  Pilate;  but,  calling  atten- 
tion to  the  divine  origin  and  function  of  civil 
power — which  the  Roman,  as  well  as  the  Jew, 
could  understand — he  charged  upon  Caiaphas 
(and  his  associates),  greater  sin,  because  they 
were  the  primary,  the  moving,  the  determined 
party  in  bringing  about  the  desecration  of  a 
power  from  God,  intended  for  the  good  of 
man.    And  this  reference  to  the  nature  of 


civil  authority,  and  its  abuse,  was  specially 
appropriate  as  a  reply  to  the  words  of  Pilate, 
who  had  intimated  that  he  could  use  his  judi- 
cial power  as  he  pleased.  Indeed,  their  ap- 
propriateness may  be  inferred  from  their  effect 
on  the  governor's  mind. 

13.  And  from  thenceforth.  Literally-, 
from  this  {U  toutou),  meaning  either,  from  this 
time,  marking  a  date,  or,  from  Has  response, 
regarded  as  a  source  or  reason.  The  Revised 
Version  has  upon  this,  which  reproduces,  in 
English,  the  ambiguity  of  the  Greek.  We 
incline  to  the  view  that  John  uses  the  phrase 
here  to  point  out  the  reason  or  occasion  of 
Pilate's  conduct,  and  thus  the  influence  of 
Christ's  remark  upon  his  mind.  Sought  to 
release  him.  By  what  means,  the  Evan- 
gelist does  not  state,  or  how  strenuous  he  was 
in  his  attempt.  Perhaps,  the  tense  of  the  verb 
(imperfect)  was  meant  to  characterize  his 
seeking  as  a  "mere  attempt,  that  came  to 
nothing,  because  of  the  peculiar  form  which 
the  Jews  gave  to  their  protest  against  it."  — 
Weiss.  If  so,  he  must  have  expressed  in 
words,  to  the  people  without,  his  purpose  or 
desire  to  release  Jesus.  But  the  Jews  cried 
out,  saying,  If  thou  release  this  man, 
thou  art  not  Csesar's  friend:  whosoever 
maketh  himself  a  king,  speaketh  against 
Caesar.  Nothing  in  the  life  of  Jesus  gave 
the  slightest  occasion  for  this  language.  He 
had  scrupulously  avoided  intermeddling  with 
civil  affairs.  (Luke  12:  u.)  He  had  gone  away 
into  a  mountain  alone,  when  the  people 
sought  to  take  him,  and  make  him  king. 
(joiin6:i5.)  He  had  expressly  sanctioned  the 
payment  of  tribute  to  Csesar.  (m^u.  22: 21.)  In- 
deed, one  of  their  chief  reasons  for  rejecting 
his  Messianic  claims,  was  the  certainty  that 
he  would  not  head  a  rebellion  against  Rome, 
and  re-establish  the  Kingdom  of  Israel.  But 
false  as  was  the  purport  of  their  language,  it 
served  their  end  as  well  as  if  it  had  been  true. 
Pilate  knew  something  already  of  the  temper 
of  Jews,  and  he  feared  that  thej^  would  make 
what  they  were  now  saying  heard  in  Rome,  if 
he  did  not  comply  with  their  demand.  With 
him,  selfishness  was  stronger  than  duty,  and 


376 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


13  Wben    Pilate    therefore    heard    that    saying,    he  i  13  himself   a  king  'speaketh    against  Caisar.     When 


brought  Jesus  forth,  and  sat  down  in  the  judgment 
seat  iu  a  place  that  is  called  the  Pavement,  but  in  the 
Hebrew,  (jabbatha. 

14  And  "it  was  the  preparation  of  the  passover,  and 
abont  the  sixth  hour:  and  he  saith  unto  the  Jews,  Be- 
hold your  King ! 


Pihite  thereiore  heard  these  words,  he  brought  Je- 
sus out,  and  sat  down  on  the  judgment  seat  at  a 
place  called  The  Pasemeut,  but  in  Hebrew,  Gabba- 
14  tha.  Now  it  was  the  l^reparation  of  the  passover: 
it  was  about  the  sixth  hour.    And  he  saith  unto  the 


a  Matt.  27:  Gi. 1  Or,  opposeth  Cceaar. 


it  did  not  take  him  long  to  decide  upon  his 
course.  By  no  means  over-anxious  to  please 
the  Jews,  he  was  exceedingly  desirous  of 
standing  well  with  the  Emperor,  and  reluctant 
to  do  anything  that  would  look  like  inditfer- 
ence  to  his  supremacy.  At  last,  the  enemies 
of  Christ  have  carried  their  point — but  only 
by  arousing  the  selfish  fear  of  the  procurator, 
through  a  false  charge  that  might  be  repeated 
where  it  would  work  his  recall  to  Eome  in 
disgrace. 

13-16.  Condemnation  of  Jesus  by 
Pilate. 

13.  When  Pilate  therefore  heard  that 
saying.  Or,  according  to  the  earliest  manu- 
scripts and  the  best  editors,  these  words: 
"Every  word  was  for  Pilate  an  arrow." — 
Hengstenberg.  He  brought  Jesus  forth— 
that  is,  out  of  the  prietorium— and  sat  down 
in  (rather,  on)  the  judgment  seat,  in  a 
place  called  the  Pavement,  but  in 
Hebrew,  Gabbatha.  It  was  customary 
(see  Josephus  "De  Bell.  Jud.,"  2,  9,  3;  2, 
14,  8,)  to  pronounce  formal  judgment  in  the 
open  air.  Hence  the  action  of  Pilate,  when 
he  had  made  up  his  mind  what  to  do.  The 
particular  spot  outside  the  prsetorium,  where 
the  governor's  seat,  or  tribunal,  was  placed, 
was  somewhat  elevated,  and  on  that  account 
bore  the  Aramaic  name,  Gabbatha;  it  was 
also  paved  with  stones,  and  for  that  reason 
bore  the  Greek  name,  Lithostroton,  a  pave- 
ment. The  mention  of  these  names  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  general  minuteness  and  evi- 
dent accuracy  of  the  narrative,  proving  that  it 
must  have  been  written  by  an  ej^e-witness  of 
the  events  recorded.  But  so  long  as  the  ques- 
tion. Where  was  the  praetorium  of  Pilate?  in 
Herod's  palace,  or  in  the  castle  of  Antonia? 
remains  unanswered,  we  cannot  point  to  any 
spot  in  modern  Jerusalem  and  say:  Here 
was  the  tribunal  of  Pilate  when  he  delivered 
Jesus  to  be  crucified. 

14.  And  it  was  the  preparation  of  the 
passover.  The  Revised  Version  is  prefer- 
able :  Now  it  was  the  preparation  of  the  pass- 


over.  The  word  translated  preparation, 
being  virtually  a  proper  name  for  Fridaj',  as 
the  day  of  preparation  for  the  Sabbath  ;  and 
as  this  was  the  Friday  of  the  passover  week, 
it  was  the  preparation  day  belonging  to  the 
passover,  regarded  as  a  weeklj'  festival.  (See 
Robinson,  "Greek  Harmony  of  the  Gospels," 
p.  219  sq.  ;  McClellan,  "The  Four  Gospels," 
p.  485,  and  context;  "Wieseler,  "A  Chrono- 
logical Synopsis  of  the  Four  Gospels,"  p.  325 
sq.  of  Bohn's  transl.)  And  about  the  sixth 
hour.  Since,  according  to  the  best  manu- 
script authority  (N  ABDLMUXAn)  the 
original  Greek  text  had  the  verb  was  (V)  in- 
stead of  the  conjunction  and  ifie),  the  Revised 
Version,  it  teas  about  the  sixth  hour,  must  be 
accepted  as  correct,  though  it  mars  the 
smoothness  of  the  verse  in  English.  But, 
how  can  John's  notation  of  time  be  reconciled 
with  the  statement  of  Mark  (i5: 25),  that  the 
crucifixion  took  place  at  the  third  hour? 
Alford  says,  that  "there  is  an  insuperable 
difficultA'  in  the  text  as  it  now  stands."  And 
if  we  assume  that  both  the  Evangelists  used 
the  same  starting  point  in  reckoning  the  hours 
of  the  da^',  the  diflerence  between  their 
records  is  ver^'  marked,  and  seems  at  first  an 
obvious  contradiction.  It  was  the  third  hour 
when  thej'  crucified  him;  it  Wiis  about  the 
sixth  hour  when  Pilate  delivered  him  up  to 
be  crucified.  It  was  nine  o'clock  in  the 
morning  when  they  nailed  him  to  the  cross; 
it  was  about  twelve  o'clock  when  he  was 
handed  over  to  the  soldiers  to  be  led  to  Cal- 
vary. Is  there,  as  thus  stated,  a  more  glaring 
contradiction  in  the  records  of  any  event  ? 
Much  depends  upon  the  habits  of  the  people 
in  referring  to  time.  After  a  cautious  state- 
ment of  the  case,  Andrews,  in  his  "Life  of 
our  Lord,"  p.  533,  says:  "We  conclude, 
then,  that  the  sixth  hour  of  John  was  the 
twelfth  hour  with  us,  or  midday.  But  it  is  to 
be  noted  that  he  says,  'about  the  sixth  hour,' 
(cos  €<£")),  which  implies  that  he  gives  no  exact 
note  of  the  time.  It  is  rendered  by  Norton: 
'it  was  toward  noon,'  and  this  very  well  ex- 


Ch.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


377 


presses  the  meaning.  Mark's  words,  'it  was 
tlie  tliird  hour,  and  they  crucified  him,'  need 
not  be  taken  as  a  specific  designation  of  tlie 
hour  when  he  was  nailed  to  the  cross,  but  as 
marking  the  time  when,  the  sentence  having 
been  pronounced,  he  was  given  up  to  the  sol- 
diers, and  the  preparatory  steps  to  the  cruci- 
fixion began.  Our  exact  divisions  of  time 
were  wholly  unknown  to  the  ancients." 

Dr.  Kobinson  (with  Alford,  and  others) 
supposes  a  corruption  of  the  text.  "The 
third  hour  of  Mark,  as  the  hour  of  cruci- 
fixion, is  sustained  by  the  whole  course  of  the 
transaction  and  circumstances;  as  also  by  the 
fact  stated  by  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  that 
the  darkness  commenced  at  the  sixth  hour, 
after  Jesus  had  already  for  some  time  hung 
upon  the  cross.  .  .  .  The  reading  sixth  in 
John  is,  therefore,  probably  an  early  error  of 
transcription  for  third  ^F  for  V. )  Indeed,  this 
last  rendering  is  found  in  Codex  Bezae  and 
Codex  Regius  62,  as  well  as  in  several  other 
authorities;  so  that  its  external  weight  is 
marked  by  Griesbach  as  nearly  or  quite 
equal  to  that  of  the  common  reading;  wliile 
the  internal  evidence  in  its  favor  is  certainly 
far  greater."  It  may  certainly  be  conceded 
that,  if  the  numerals  were  denoted  by  letters, 
a  gamma  ma^^  easily  have  been  mistaken  for 
a  digamma,  and  thus  the  word  sixth  may 
liave  been  substituted  for  the  word  third. 
But  against  this  explanation  it  may  be  re- 
marked: (1)  That  no  critical  editors  have 
ventured  to  substitute  third  for  sixth  in  this 
passage;  (2)  that  the  external  testimony  for 
third  is  greatly  inferior  to  that  for  sixth — it 
being  only  five  uncials  of  second  rate  import- 
ance, four  cursives  of  no  special  value,  and  a 
reported  statement  of  Eusebius,  that  third  is 
the  reading  of  the  "accurate  copies,"  and  of 
the  Evangelists'  autograph,  preserved  in 
"Ephesus  (!),  against  more  than  fourteen  un- 
cials (including  N*  A  B),  all  cursives  except 
four,  and  all  the  early  versions;  and  (3)  that 
transcribers,  noting  the  discrepancy  between 
til  is  statement  and  that  of  Mark,  would  have 
been  more  likely  to  seek  harmony  by  chang- 
ing sixth  to  third  than  to  introduce  discord 
by  changing  third  to  sixths 

1  Allowing  my  own  statement  to  remain,  I  will  add 
that  of  Dr.  Broadus,  who  has  given  special  study  to 
textual  criticism,  and  of  whose  learning  and  judgment 


Still  another  explanation  of  the  diflference 
between  John  and  Mark, has  been  defended  by 
such  scholars  as  Wieseler,  Tholuck,  McClel- 
lan,  and  Westcott.  It  is,  that  the  llomans 
reckoned  their  civil  day  from  midnight  to 
midnight,  and  that  John,  writing  for  Chris- 
tians in  Asia  Minor,  followed  that  usage.  A 
careful  study  of  ihe  other  passages  in  which 
John  mentions  the  hour  of  the  day  when  any 
event  took  place  (viz., i: 39;  4:6,52),  is  favorable 
to  the  view  that  he  counted  the  hours  from 
midnight  to  midnight.  "It  must,  however, 
be  admitted,"  says  Westcott,  "that  this  mode 
of  reckoning  hours  was  unusual  in  ancient 
times.  The  llomans  (Mart.  IV.  8)  and  Greeks, 
no  less  than  the  Jews,  reckoned  their  hours 
from  sunrise.  But  the  Romans  reckoned  their 
civil  days  from  midnight  (Aul.  Gell.  III.  2; 
comp.  Matt.  27:  19,  'this  day')  and  not  from 
sunrise,  or  from  sunset  (as  the  Jews.)  And 
there  are  also  traces  of  reckoning  the  hours 
from  midnight  in  Asia  Minor.  Polycarp  is 
said  (Mart.  Pol.  c.  21)  to  have  been  martyred 
at  Smyrna  'at  the  eighth  hour.'  This,  from 
the  circumstances,  must  have  been  at  8  A.  m. 
Pionius  again  is  said  to  have  been  mart^^red 
(at  Smyrna,  also)  'at  tlie  tentli  hour,'  which 
can  hardly  have  been  4  p.  m.,  since  such  exhi- 
bitions usually  took  place  before.  These  two 
passages  furnish  a  suflScient  presumption  that 
St.  John,  in  using  what  is  the  modern  reckon- 
ing, followed  a  practice  of  the  ])rovince  in 
which  he  was  living,  and  for  which  he  was 
writing." — Westcott. 

But,  was  there  time  between  the  sending  of 
Jesus  to  Pilate  and  the  hour  of  6  or  6.30  a.  m. 
for  all  the  events  related  by  the  Evangelists? 
The  terininus  a  quo  may,  perhaps,  be  put  as 
early  as  3.30  a.  m.  For  we  are  told  by  John 
that  is  was  "morning"  (n-puia,  18:  28;  see  also 
Matt.  27:  1;  Mark  1-5:  1).  The  Jews  were 
naturally  anxious  to  secure  the  death  of  Jesus 
at  the  earliest  moment  possible,  for  it  was  a 
feast  day,  and  they  wished  to  take  part  in  the 
religious  services  of  the  day.  We  may,  there- 
fore, presume  that  the  Sanhedrin  met  at  the 
earliest  practicable  hour.  But  the  word  used 
in  the  passages  cited,  is  applied  specifically  to 
"the  fourth  watch  of  the  night,  that  is,  to  the 

I  have  been   permitted  to   avail  myself  often,  as   the 
reader  must  have  observed. 
[Instead  of  eicnj  "  sixth,"  we  find  Tptri)  "  third,  in  \\ 


378 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


15  But  they  cried  out,  Away  with  him,  away  with 
him,  cruciiy  him.  Pilate  saith  unto  them,  Shall  I  cru- 
cify your  King?  The  chief  priests  answered,  "We 
have  110  king  but  Cesar. 


15  Jews,  Behold,  your  King !  They  therefore  cried 
out,  Away  with  him,  away  with  him,  crucify  hiiu. 
Pilate  saith  iiuto  them,  .shall  I  crucify  your  Kiug? 
Tlie  cliief  priests  answered,  We  have  no  king  but 


time  from  three  to  six  a.  m.,  in  our  way  of 
reckoning." — Grimm.  Let  it  then  be  assumed 
that  Jesus  was  sent  to  Pilate  at  3.30  a.  m.  A 
half  hour  would  be  ample  time  for  the  public 
charges  made  by  the  Jews  and  their  subse- 
quent examination  of  Christ  in  the  prsetorium 

by  Pilate.    (Matt.  27:  l,  2,  tl-l*;  Miirk  15:  1-5;  Luke  23:  1-5; 

johu  18:  28-3S.)  Again,  the  residence  of  Herod 
may  have  been  very  near  the  praetorium,  so 
that  half  an  hour  would  have  been  sufficient 
for  the  episode  of  sending  Jesus  to  Herod,  in- 
cluding the  questions  and  mocking  there,  and 
the  return  to  Pilate;  for  Herod  could  not 
have  spent  a  long  time  in  questioning  a  pris- 
oner who  would  make  no  answer  at  all  to  his 
inquiries.  (Luiie23:9.)  At  half-past  four,  Jesus 
would  therefore  have  been  with  Pilate  again. 
The  governor,  therefore,  repeats  his  declara- 
tion that  he  finds  no  cause  of  death  in  Jesus 
(even  as  Herod  had  found  none),  and  offers 
them  the  alternative  of  saving  Jesus  or  Barab- 
bas.  During  this  process,  the  message  from 
his  wife  is  delivered  to  him.  Half  an  hour, 
reaching  to  five  o'clock,  would  be  more  than 
enough  for  all  that  was  done  before  the  scourg- 
ing.   (Matt.  27:  15-26;   Mark  15:  615;  Luke  23  :  13-25;   John  18  : 

:9.  ■lo.)  For  the  .scourging  and  mocking,  three- 
quarters  of  an  hour  may  be  allowed  (Matt. 27: 

26-30;    Mark  15:    15-19;    John   19:    1-3),    bringing    US    tO    a 

quarter  before  six.  Less  than  a  quarter  of  an 
hour  would  be  needed  for  the  presentation  of 
"the  man"  to  the  people  and  their  cries  for 
his  crucifixion  (Johni9:  4-81,  and  not  more  than 
another  quarter  for  the  return  into  the  prae- 
torium, the  brief  conversation  there,  and  the 
re-appearance  of  Pilate  on  his  tribunal  in  the 

(third  corrector)  D  (matter  supplied  to  fill  gaps,  as  late 
as  the  tentli  century. — Tisch.)  L  X  A,  four  cursives. 
Eusebius  and  several  late  Fathers  propose  to  solve  the 
apparent  striking  contradiction  between  this  passage 
and  Mark  15:  25,  by  the  supposition  that  the  Greek  F. 
three,  third,  has  been  here  accidentally  changed  into  F, 
six,  sixth.  This  suggestion  much  more  readily  ex- 
plains the  occurrence  of  rpirq  in  the  above  MSS.  of 
John ;  and  also  that  of  "  sixth,"  in  one  cursive,  margin 
of  Harklean  Syriac,  and  ilSthiopic  of  Mark  15:  25;  both 
being  obvious  attempts  to  explain  a  discrepancy,  and 
thus  entitled  to  no  serious  attention.  We  might  well 
leave  the  apparent  contradiction  between  the  two  Gos- 


open  air.  (John  i9:  9-14.)  Thus,  all  these  events 
might  surely  have  taken  place  before  the  hour 
of  6.30  A.  M. 

Pilate  had  now  resolved  to  yield  to  the  clam- 
ors of  the  Jews  for  the  blood  of  an  innocent 
man,  rather  than  incur  the  risk  of  being  ac- 
cused of  disloysilty  to  Tiberius.  But  he  was 
irritated  by  their  fierce  persistency,  and  with 
bitter  sarcasm  called  their  attention  to  the 
prisoner — still  wearing  the  purple  robe  and 
crown  of  thorns — by  the  words,  Behold, 
your  king  !  The  view  which  Weiss  takes  of 
this  expression,  is  ingenious:  "It  was  meant 
to  show  that,  owing  to  the  pressure  of  their 
demands,  he  will  recognize  the  crime  alleged 
against  Jesus  as  actual;  but,  intentionally,  he 
does  this,  not  in  the  form  of  an  ordinary  judi- 
citil  sentence,  which  would  have  asserted  the 
fact  that  Jesus  had  endeavored  to  secure  regal 
authority  in  Israel,  because  he  does  not  believe 
this  now  any  more  than  before,  but  with  a 
mocking  turn  of  expression,  which,  on  the 
one  hand,  would  set  forth  very  clearly  the 
absurdity  of  such  an  assertion,  and  on  the 
other  would  leave  open  the  interpretation  that 
he  recognized  not  only  his  guilt,  but  also  his 
guilty  claim."  There  can  be  little  doubt  of 
Pilate's  mingled  displeasure  and  scorn  at  this 
moment,  and  they  were  probabl}'  manifest 
enough  in  his  countentince  and  tone  of  voice. 

15.  But  they  cried  out.  Following  a 
slightly  different,  but  well  supported  text,  the 
Revised  Version,  reads:  Thei/,  therefore,  cried 
out.  This  Version  represents  the  Greek  as 
given  in  the  critical  editions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment: see  Treg.,  Tisch.,  Westcott  and  Hort, 

pels  unsolved,  as  we  still  have  to  do  in  some  cases.  But 
the  suggestion  of  Ewald,  and  many  others,  that  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  written  in  Asia  Minor,  long  after  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  State,  counts  the  hours  in  the 
Gieek  and  Roman  method,  from  midnight  and  noon, 
removes  all  the  difficulty:  for  John's  time  will  then  be 
G  .\.  M.,  and  the  "third  hour"  of  Mark,  clearly  a  good 
while  later,  will  be  9  a.  m.  This  mode  of  reckoning 
seems  necessary  in  John  20:  19,  compared  with  Luke 
24:29,33;  and  in  every  other  passage  of  John  giving 
the  hour  of  the  day,  it  is  entirely  suitable.  Whatever 
may  be  thought  of  this  explanation,  the  text  «r>7,  must 
stand  fast,  beyond  all  question. — B.] 


Ch.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


379 


16  "Theu  delivered  he  him  therefore  unto  them  to  be 
crucified.     And  they  took  .Jesus,  aud  led  him  away. 

17  'And  he  bearing  his  cross  <^went  lorth  into  a  place 
called  the  place  of  a  skull,  which  is  called  iu  the  He- 
brew Golgotha: 


16  Caesar.  Then  therefore  he  delivered  hiui  unto  them 
to  be  crucified. 

17  Tlity  took  .lesus  therefore:  and  he  went  out, 
bearing;  the  cross  for  himself,  unto  the  place  calJcd 
The  place  of  a  skull,  which  is  called  in  Hebrew 


a  Matt.  27  :  26,  31:  M:.rk  15:  15;  Luke  23 :  24 b  Matt.  27:  31,  33;  MarK  15;  21,  2^;  Luke  23  :  26, 


.c  Num.  15:36;  Heb.  13  :  12. 


Away  with  him!  Away  with  him  I  cru- 
cify him  !  Away  with  him,  is  but  a  single 
word  in  the  original,  so  thiit  the  cry  was  brief, 
intense,  showing  that  the  sarcasm  of  Pilate 
had  struck  deep;  the  whole  crowd  felt  it. 
Hence,  he  repeats  it;  fur  if  he  must  yield,  he 
will  not  conceal  his  contempt  for  the  Jews 
who  had  compelled  him  to  do  so.  Shall  I 
crucify  your  king?  Here,  again,  the  sting 
of  the  original  is  not  fully  preserved  in  trans- 
lating. For  by  the  order  of  words  in  the 
Greek  sentence,  your  king,  is  thrust  forward 
as  the  emphatic  part:  '''Your  ^iw^',  shall  I 
crucify?"  "For  it  is  only  on  the  ground  that 
he  claims  to  be  your  king,  that  I  consent  to 
crucify  him."  It  was  for  the  chief  priests  to 
answer  this  ;  perhaps  the  people  did  not  join 
in  their  words:  We  have  no  king  but 
Caesar:  words  well  fitted  to  accomplish  their 
immediate  purpose,  but  singularly  alien  to 
the  ordinary  Jewish  temper  and  hope. 
"They,  who  gloried  in  the  Theocracy,  and 
hoped  for  a  temporal  Messianic  reign,  which 
should  free  them  from  Roman  bondage;  they 
who  boasted  that  the3'  '  were  never  in  bond- 
age to  any  man'  (s:  33);  they,  who  were 
'chief  priests'  of  the  Jews,  confess  that 
Caesar  is  their  only  king!  "  One  cannot  help 
being  thankful  that  it  was  not  the  whole  mul- 
titude that  made  this  profession,  but  only 
the  chief  priests.  And  it  may  be  well  to  bear 
in  mind,  that  the  family  of  the  high  priest, 
and,  doubtless,  many  of  the  chief  priests,  were 
of  the  Sadducfean  party. 

16.  Then  delivereil  he  him  therefore 
unto  them  to  be  crucified.  With  what 
words,  the  Evangelist  does  not  say ;  but,  the 
end  contemplated  was  crucifixion,  and  the 
persons  to  whom  Jesus  was  delivered  were  the 
chief  priests,  under  whose  direction  Roman 
soldiers  were  to  perform  the  dreadful  act. 
Westcott  remarks,  positively,  that  "Pilate 
pronounced  no  sentence  himself.  He  simply  let 
the  chief  priests  have  their  way  (comp.  Matt. 
27:  26;  Mark  15:  15;  Luke  23:  25).  He  had 
conceded  a  little  against  justice  in  false  policy 
(ver.  1),  and  he  was  driven  to  concede  all 
against  his  will.    From  St.  Matthew  it  appears 


that  he  typically  abjured  the  responsibility 
for  the  act,  while  the  Jews  took  Christ's  blood 
upon  themselves.  (Matt. 27: 24, 25.)"  In  all  these 
scenes  there  is  but  one  perfect  man  concerned 
— namely,  the  prisoner,  mocked,  scourged, 
and  delivered  up  to  be  crucified.  In  all  this 
raging  sea  of  human  passions,  there  is  but  one 
pure  and  steadfast  soul.  The  holy  sufferer 
does  not  change,  or  fail  in  the  dread  emer- 
genc3^  And  only  because  he  is  there,  do  we 
feel  any  interest  in  the  Jewish  priests  and 
Roman  governor.  But  for  his  sake  every 
movement  of  theirs,  on  this  tragic  morn,  has 
been  studied  by  millions,  and  will  continue  to 
be  studied  until  the  end  of  time. 
16-22.  The  Crucieixion  of  Jesus. 

16.  The  last  part  of  this  verse  should  be 
connected  with  what  follows,  beginning  a  new 
paragraph.  And  they  took  Jesus  :  better, 
they  took  Jesus,  therefore.  The  word  trans- 
lated took,  is  the  same  as  that  translated 
"received,"  in  1:  11:  "He  came  unto  his 
own,  and  his  own  received  him  not."  In 
itself  it  does  not  point  to  any  particular  way 
of  taking  or  receiving.  Here  it  means  that 
the  chief  priests  received  Jesus  from  Pilate's 
charge  into  their  own  charge;  so  that  the 
soldiers  who  guarded  him  and  might  crucify 
him  were  under  their  command.  The  words, 
and  led  him  away,  are  now  supposed  to  be 
an  interpolation. 

17.  And  he  bearing  his  cross,  etc.  The 
Revised  Version  is  an  improvement:  And  he 
went  out— t\\At  is,  from  the  place  where  he  was 
in  the  city — bearing  the  cross  for  hitnself,  unto 
the  place  called,  The  place  of  a  skull,  which  is 
called  in  Hebrew,  Golgotha.  Though  .Jesus,  as 
was  customary,  bore  his  cross  at  first,  and  per- 
haps, the  larger  part  of  the  way,  the  first  three 
Evangelists  (Matt.  27:  32;  Mark  15 :  21 ;  Luke 2-!:  26),  re- 
late that  those  who  led  him  f)ut  of  the  city 
compelled  a  man  of  C3'rene,  Simon  by  name, 
who  was  coming  out  of  the  country,  to  bear 
the  cross  of  Jesus  after  him,  doubtless  because 
the  latter  had  become  so  weak  and  faint, 
through  agonj"^  of  soul  and  pain  of  body,  that 
he  was  no  longer  able  to  sustain  the  burden. 

The  author  of  "  Ben  Hur,"  thus  describes 


580 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


tlie  scene:  "He  was  nearly  dead.  Every 
few  steps  he  staggered,  as  if  he  would  fall. 
A  stained  gown,  badly  torn,  hung  from  his 
shoulders  over  a  seamless  uiider-tunic.  His 
bare  feet  left  red  splotches  upon  the  stones.  An 
inscription  on  a  board,  was  tied  to  his  neck.  A 
crown  of  thorns  had  been  crushed  hard  down 
upon  his  head,  making  cruel  wounds,  from 
which  streams  of  blood,  now  dry  and  black- 
ened, had  run  over  his  face  and  neck.  The 
long  hair,  tangled  in  the  thorns,  was  clotted 
thick.     The  skin,  where  it  could  be  seen,  was 


was  the  multitude  that  went  out  to  witness 
the  spectacle?  how  many  were  the  women 
who  bewailed  and  lamented  him  (Luke23:27)? 
how  much  time  was  consumed  on  the  way? 
are  questions  that  cannot  be  answered.  But 
Luke  informs  us  that  two  malefactors  were 
led  with  him  to  be  put  to  death.  These  crimi- 
nals may,  perhaps,  have  been  tried  and  con- 
demned after  the  more  difficult  case  of  Jesus 
had  been  settled ;  if  so,  we  can  understand 
why,  on  the  hypothesis  that  we  have  supposed 
to  be  correct  as  to  the  sixth  hour  ^ver.  u),  so 


SUPPOSED  SITE  OF  CALVARY. 


ghastly  white.  His  hands  were  tied  before 
him.  Back  somewhere  in  the  citj',  he  had 
fallen  exhausted,  under  the  transverse  of  his 
cross,  which,  as  a  condemned  person,  custom 
required  him  to  bear  to  the  place  of  execu- 
tion ;  now,  a  countrj'man  carried  the  burden 
in  his  stead.  Four  soldiers  went  with  him  as 
a  guard  against  the  mob,  who  sometimes, 
nevertheless,  broke  through,  and  struck  him 
with  sticks,  and  spit  upon  him.  Yet,  no  sound 
escaped  him,  neither  remonstrance  nor  groan." 
A  sad  and  slow  procession!  How  long 
it  was  in  forming,  after  Pilate  delivered 
Christ  to  the  chief  priests?    how  numerous 


long  a  time  elapsed  between  the  condemna- 
tion of  Christ  and  his  crucifixion.  The  sol- 
diers, with  their  victims,  did  not  start  for  the 
place  of  crucifixion,  until  everything  was 
completed  by  way  of  preparation.  And  that 
place,  Golgotha,  was  outside  the  city  walls, 
though  the  site  of  it  is  not  certainlj'  known. 
Its  name  is  thought  to  have  been  suggested 
by  its  resemblance,  in  contour,  to  a  human 
skull.  But,  Capt.  C.  E.  Conder,  says:  "It 
may  reasonably,  however,  be  supposed  that 
Golgotha  ('the  skull')  was  the  ordinary  place 
of  execution  for  criminals,  which  is  men- 
tioned in  the  Mishna,  under  the  name  Beth- 


Ch.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


381 


18  Where  they  crucified  him,  and  two  others  with    18  Golgotha:  where  they  crucified  him,  and  with  him 
him,  on  either  side  one,  and  Jesus  in  the  midst.  |       two  others,  on   either  side  one,  and  Jesus  in   the 


has-Sekilah — 'The  House  of  Stoning:'  for 
theM  is  no  reason  to  tiiini<  that  the  Roman 
procurator  would  have  made  use  of  a  differ- 
ent place  of  execution  to  that  established  by 
the  Jewish  Sanhedrin,  although  that  assembly 
had  been  debarred  by  the  Romans  from  the 
power  of  inflicting  capitaF  punishment  only  a 
little  before  the  date  of  the  crucifixion." 
After  showing  that  the  "House  of  Stoning" 
was  also  a  recognized  place  of  crucifixion, 
he  proceeds  thus:  "A  tradition  is  current 
amongst  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem,  which  places 
this  '  House  of  Stoning'  at  the  present  knoll 
north  of  the  Damascus  Grate,  in  which  is  a 
cave,  known  since  the  fifteenth  century  as  the 
'  Grotto  of  Jeremiah,'  with  a  cliff,  the  maxi- 
mum height  of  which  is  about  50  feet,  facing 
southwards  towards  the  city.''  "The  site  is 
one  well-fitted  for  a  place  of  public  execution. 
The  top  of  the  knoll  is  2,550  feet  above  the 
sea,  or  110  feet  above  the  top  of  the  Sakhrah 
rock  in  the  Haram.  It  commands  a  view 
over  the  city  walls  to  the  temple  enclosure, 
and  the  H0I3'  Sepulchre  Church.  A  sort  of 
amphitheatre  is  formed  by  the  gentle  slopes  on 
the  east ;  and  the  whole  population  of  the  city 
might  easily  witness  from  the  vicinity  any 
thing  taking  place  on  the  top  of  the  cliff.  The 
knoll  is  just  beside  the  maJn  north  road.  It 
is  occupied  by  a  cemetery'  of  Moslem  tombs, 
which  existed  as  early  as  the  fifteenth  century, 
at  least;  and  the  modern  slaughter-house  of 
Jerusalem  is  on  the  north  slope.  The  hill  is 
quite  bare,  with  scanty  grass  coveringthe  rocky 
soil,  and  a  few  irises  and  wild  flowers  grow- 
ing among  the  graves.  Not  a  tree  or  shrub  is 
visible  on  it,  though  fine  olive  groves  stretch 
northward  from  its  vicinity."  (''Survey  of 
Western  Palestine — Jerusalem,"  p.  430,  sq. ). 
We  regard  the  "House  of  Stoning"  as  meet- 
ing thfc,  conditions  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment for  Golgotha  far  better  than  they  are 
met  by  the  traditional  site  at  the  Church  of 
the  Holy  Sepulchre.  Of  it,  Edersheim,  says: 
"It  is  a  weird,  drearj'  place,  two  or  three 
minutes  aside  from  the  high  road,  with  a 
high,  rounded,  skull-like,  rocky  plateau,  and 
a  sudden  depression  or  hollow  beneath,  as  if 
tht,  jaws  of  that  skull  had  opened.  Whether 
or  not  the  tomb  of  the  Herodian  period  in  the 
rocky  knoll  to  the  west  01  Jeremiah's  Grotto, 


was  the  most  sacred  spot  upon  earth — the 
'Sepulchre  in  the  Garden'  — we  dare  not  posi- 
tively assert,  though  every  probability  at- 
taches to  it."  ' 

18.  Where  they  crucified  him.  These 
few  words  signify  a  most  cruel  infliction,  a 
punishment  that  was  invented  to  make  death 
as  painful  and  protracted  as  possible.  Eder- 
sheim describes  it  thus:  "First,  the  upright 
wood  was  planted  in  the  ground.  It  was  not 
high,  and  probably  the  feet  of  the  sufferer 
were  not  above  one  or  two  feet  from  the 
ground.  Thus  could  the  communication, 
described  in  the  Gospels,  take  place  between 
him  and  others;  thus,  also,  might  his  sacred 
lips  be  moistened  with  the  sponge  attached  to 
a  short  stalk  of  hyssop.  Next,  the  transverse 
wood  (antenna)  was  placed  on  the  ground, 
and  the  sufferer  laid  on  it,  and  his  arms  were 
extended,  drawn  up,  and  bound  to  it.  Then 
(this,  not  in  Egypt,  but  in  Carthage  and 
Rome),  a  strong,  sharp  nail  was  driven,  first 
into  the  right,  then  into  the  left  hand  (the 
clavi  trabales).  Next,  the  sufferer  was  drawn 
up  by  means  of  ropes,  perhaps  ladders;  the 
transverse  either  bound  or  nailed  to  the  up- 
right, and  a  rest  or  support  for  the  body  fas- 
tened on  it — (the  cornu  or  sedile).  Lastly,  the 
feet  were  extended,  and  either  one  nail  ham- 
mered into  each,  or  a  larger  piece  of  iron 
through  the  two.  We  have  already  expressed 
our  belief  that  the  indignity  of  exposure  was 
not  offered  at  such  a  Jewish  execution.  And 
so  might  the  crucified  hang  for  hours,  even 
days,  in  the  unutterable  anguish  of  suffering, 
till  consciousness  at  last  failed."  And  with 
him  two  others,  on  either  side  one,  and 
Jesus  in  the  midst.  Matthew  (27:3k)^  and 
Mark  (15: 27),  call  these  two  in  en  robbers  (kricrai) 


'The  last  ivord  on  the  "Site  of  Calvary,"  is  from  the 
pen  of  Dr.  Selah  Merrill,  American  Consul  at  Jerusa- 
lem, in  the  Andover  Review,  for  November,  1885,  p.  484: 
"  If  a  person,  wholly  ignorant  of  any  question  in  con- 
nection with  the  Site  of  Calvary,  were  asked  to  select 
a  spot,  without  the  walls  of  the  city  for  the  public  exp- 
cution  of  criminals,  the  only  two  conditions  being  that 
the  place  should  be  a  sightly  one  and  convenient  to  the 
Castle  of  Antonia,  he  would  not  hesitate  a  moment  in 
choosing  tliis  hill  for  that  purpose."  Again,  on  p.  488. 
"The  strong  probabilities  are  in  favor  of  regarding  the 
hill  above  Jeremiah's  Grotto,  as  the  place  of  the  cruci- 
fi&ioa  of  our  Lord." 


382 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


19  '  And  Pilate  wrote  a  title,  and  put  it  on  the  cross. 
And  the  writing  was,  JESUS  OF  NAZARETH  THE 
KING  OF  THE  JEWS. 

20  This  title  then  read  many  of  the  Jews:  for  the 
place  where  Jesus  was  crucitied  was  nigh  to  the  city: 
and  it  was  written  iu  Hebrew,  and  Greek,  and  Latin. 


19  midst.  And  Pilate  wrote  a  title  aI.so,  and  put  it  on 
the  cross.   And  there  was  written,  JESUS  OF  NAZA- 

20  KETH,  THE  KING  OF  THE  JEWS.  This  title  there- 
lore  read  many  of  the  Jews:  ifor  the  place  where 
Jesus  was  crucified  was  nigh  to  the  city :  and  it  was 
written   in   Hebrew,  and  iu  Latin,  and  in   Greek 


a  Matt,  a?  :  37  :  Mark  15 :  '26  ;  Lulte  ti  :  38. 1  Or,  /or  the  place  of  the  eity  where  Jeau 


cifled  was  nigh  at  hand. 


— not  thieves— {oT  thieves  take  that  which  be- 
longs to  others,  secretly,  while  robbers  do  the 
same  thing  by  open  violence  and  murder. 
The  Evangelists  have  given  us  no  informa- 
tion, beyond  the  meaning  of  this  designation, 
concerning  the  previous  life  or  criminal  con- 
duct of  the  "malefactors"  (Luke)  crucified 
with  the  Saviour.  But,  Matthew  and  Mark 
testify  that  the  robbers  joined  with  the  chief 
priests  in  reproaching  Christ,  while  Luke  as- 
serts that  one  of  them  relented,  confessed  the 
justice  of  his  punishment  and  the  blameless- 
ness  of  Christ,  and  entreated  the  latter  to  re- 
member him    when   he  should  come  in  bis 

kingdom.  (Matt.  27:44;  Mark  15:32;  Luke  23:  39-43.)  ThuS 

these  two  dying  criminals  were  equally  near 
the  Saviour;  but  one  of  them  rejected  him 
bitterly,  while  the  other  sought  his  favor  with 
penitence. 

19.  And  Pilate  wrote  a  title.  Add  the 
word  also,  with  the  Revised  Version,  to  make 
the  English  represent  exactly  the  Greek. 
The  word  title  is  said  to  have  been  the  techni- 
cal name  for  such  a  statement  as  was  placed 
on  the  cross.  Matthew  and  Mark  call  it  his 
accusation.  It  was  "the  bill,  or  placard, 
showing  who  the  condemned  person  was,  and 
why  he  was  punished." — Plnmptre.  And  put 
it  on  the  cross :  probably,  above  the  head 
of  Jesus,  on  the  upright  shaft.  And  the 
writing  was  :  more  literally,  and  there  tons 
written. — {Rev.  Ver.),  but  the  meaning  is  the 
same.  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  King  of 
the  JCAVs.  It  is  easy  to  imagine  several  rea- 
sons whj'  Pilate  put  just  this  title  on  the  cross. 
It  would  be,  in  some  sense,  an  adequate  rea- 
son for  capital  punishment,  at  least,  in  Roman 
eyes.  It  would  keep  before  the  Jews  the 
charge  on  which  Pilate  acted;  and  the  more 
of  reality  there  was  back  of  the  claim  of 
Jesus,  the  more  disgraceful  was  the  transac- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  and  the  less 
culpable  on  the  part  of  the  governor.  It 
would,  perhaps,  suggest  that  Jesus  had  im- 
pressed Pilate  as  one  who  had  some  sort  of 
religious  pre-eminence  which  the  Jews  were 
bound  to  honor.     Says    Plumptre:    "There 


was,  apparently,  a  kind  of  rough  tenderness 
towards  the  man  whom  he  had  condemned  in 
the  form  which  Pilate  had  ordered.  He 
would,  at  least,  recognize  his  claims  to  be  in 
some  sense  a  king.  The  priests  obviously  felt 
it  to  imply  such  a  recognition,  a  declaration, 
as  it  were,  to  them  and  to  the  people  that  One 
who  had  a  right  to  be  their  king,  who  was  the 
only  kind  of  a  king  they  were  ever  likely  to 
have,  had  died  the  death  of  a  malefactor." 

Attention  has  been  called  by  writers  on  in- 
spiration to  the  difference  between  the  super- 
cription  over  Jesus  given  by  one  Evangelist 
and  that  given  by  another.  No  two  of  them 
arealike.  Matthew  says  it  was:  Thin  is  Jesus, 
THE  King  OF  THE  Jews;  Mark;  The  King 
OF  THE  Jews;  Luke:  This  is — the  King 
OF  THE  Jews;  and  John:  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
the  King  of  the  Jews.  It  is  admi.ssible 
to  suppose  that  the  title  in  full,  read  :  This  is 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  THE  King  of  the  Jews. 
In  copying  it,  Mark  thought  it  sufficient  to 
give  only  the  essential  part,  the  accusation, 
omitting  the  introductory  words;  Luke  also 
thought  it  unnecessary  to  give  the  name,  and 
therefore  copied  the  accusation,  with  the  in- 
troductory words,  this  is;  Matthew  gave  all 
but  the  adjective  signifying  of  Nazareth;  and 
John  omitted  the  less  important  this  is,  giv- 
ing the  name  in  full  and  the  accusation.  No 
one  of  them  added  anything  to  what  was 
written;  no  one  omitted  anj'  word  of  the  ac- 
cusation. Historians  of  perfect  veracity  are 
doing  the  same  thing  continually.  To  say 
that  this  or  that  was  said,  is  not,  ordinarily,  to 
affirm  that  this  or  that  is  all  that  was  said.  If 
nothing  is  omitted  which  changes  the  mean- 
ing of  what  is  repeated,  there  is  often  no 
reason  for  saying  that  anything  is  omitted. 
We  regard,  therefore,  such  differences  as  ap- 
pear in  the  several  copies  of  this  title  made  by 
the  Evangelists  as  entirely  consistent  with  the 
doctrine  of  plenary  inspiration. 

20.  This  title  then  (therefore)  (oiv)  read 
many  of  the  Jews.  The  reading  of  it  was  a 
natural  consequence  of  its  being  placed  on  the 
cross,  and  also,  of  its  being  placed  there  by  au- 


Ch.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


883 


21  Thon  said  the  cliiuf  priests  of  the  Jews  to  Pilate, 
Write  uot,  TiieKiiigot  the  Jews;  but  that  he  said,  I 
aui  King  of  the  Jews. 

22  l^ilate  answered,  VVliat  I  have  writteu  I  have  writ- 
ten. 

23  "Then  the  soldiers,  when  tliey  had  crucified  Jesus, 
took  his  garments,  and  made  four  [larls,  to  every  soldier 
apart;  and  also  his  coat:  now  the  coat  was  without 
seam,  woven  from  the  top  throughout. 


21  The  chief  priests  of  the  Jews  therefore  said  to  Pilate, 
Write  not,   The  Kinj.' of  the  Jews;  but,  that  he  said, 

22  I  am  King  of  the  Jews.  I'ilate  answered,  What  I 
have  written  I  have  written. 

23  The  soldiers  therefore,  when  they  had  crucified 
Jesus,  took  his  garments,  and  mado  four  parts,  to 
every  soldier  a  part;  and  also  the  'coat:  now  the 
icoat    was     without     seam,    woveu    from    the    top 


a  Matt.  27  :  35  ;  Mark  15  :  24  ;  Luke  23  :  34. 1  Or.  tunic. 


thority,  and  not  le.ss,  perhaps,  of  its  character, 
so  di.<pleasing  to  the  Jews.  For  the  first  priest 
that  read  it,  would  be  likely  to  speak  of  it  to 
his  companions  with  keen  dissatisfaction,  and 
so  the  knowledge  of  it  would  spread.  For 
the  place  where  Jesus  was  crucified  was 
nigh  to  the  cityr  and,  therefore,  many  vis- 
ited Golgotha,  and  when  there,  read  the  super- 
scription. The  nearness  of  the  place  was  a 
reason  why  so  many  read  the  offensive  title. 
And  it  was  written  in  Hebrew,  and 
Greek,  n?id  Latin.  So  that  all  who  passed 
by  could  read  it  for  themselves,  if  they  could 
read  at  all.  The  natives  of  Palestine  were,  of 
course,  familiar  with  their  mother  tongue — 
the  Aramaic,  here  called  the  Hebrew.  Jews 
born  in  foreign  lands,  but  sojourning  at  this 
time  in  Jerusalem  (see  Acts  2:  8-11),  would 
be  likely  to  know  the  Greek,  as  would  many 
of  other  nations.  And  some  of  the  Romans 
connected  with  Pilate's  army  would  probably 
know  how  to  read  the  Latin  only.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  the  full  superscription  was  written 
in  but  one  of  these  languages,  wliile  only  the 
more  important  part  of  it  was  written  in  the 
others.  But  there  is  no  evidence  of  this  in 
the  Gospel  narratives. 

21.  Then  said  the  chief  priests  of  the 
Jews.  The  Revised  Version  is  probably 
correct  in  rendering  the  conjunction  (ovv), 
therefore,  instead  of  then;  for  the  sequence  is 
logical  rather  than  temporal.  John  conceives 
of  the  remonstrance  of  these  Jewish  priests  as 
occasioned  by  the  ease  with  which  all  who 
passed  that  way  could  read  the  title  over 
Jesus,  as  it  was  written  in  three  languages. 
The  expression,  "chief  priests  of  the  Jews,''' 
is  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  writer's  de- 
sire to  emphasize  the  fact  that  they  belonged 
to  the  leading  Jewish  part}'  that  had  com- 
passed the  death  of  Christ.  Write  not,  The 
King  of  the  Jews ;  but  that  he  said,  I 
am  King  of  the  Jews.  This  request  of 
the  priests  was  natural,  and  indeed,  plausible. 


But  it  did  not  fairly  represent  what  Jesus  had 
said  of  himself,  either  to  them  or  to  the  gov- 
ernor. When  conjured  by  the  high  priest,  in 
answer  to  the  question,  "  Art  thou  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God?"  he  had  said,  "I  am;  and 
ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  at  the 
right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  with  the 
clouds  of  heaven."  Upon  this,  the  high 
priest  had  rent  his  clothes  and  accused  him  of 
blasphemy.  (See  Matt.  26:  63-66;  Mark  14: 
61-64;  Luke  22:  67-71 ;  John  19:  7.)  Taking 
this  answer  of  Jesus  as  it  was  understood  by 
the  Sanhedrin,  we  must  deny  that  it  was  a 
claim  to  being  king  of  the  Jews,  in  any  ordi- 
nary sense  of  that  expression.  In  answer  to 
Pilate's  question,  "Art  thou  a  king,  then?" 
he  affirmed  that  he  was;  but  proceoded  to  ex- 
plain his  kingship,  not  as  placing  him  over 
the  Jews,  as  a  people,  but  as  clothing  him 
with  authority  as  a  witness  to  the  truth  over 
all  genuine  lovers  of  the  truth  (John  is:  as,  37).  It 
is  clear,  then,  that  these  "chief  priests  of  the 
Jews"  wished  to  have  the  title  changed,  not 
for  truth's  sake,  but  to  escape  the  sting  that 
was  felt  to  be  in  it. 

22.  Pilate  answered.  What  I  have 
Avritten  I  have  written.  In  other  words: 
"The  thing  is  done  and  cannot  be  changed  ; 
the  word  is  spoken  and  cannot  be  revoked: 
I  have  written  once  for  all,  and  the  matter 
is  settled."  For  the  procurator  has  no  de- 
sire to  grotify  these  Jewish  zealots.  On  the 
contrary,  he  is  pleased  to  show  them  his  inde- 
pendence. 

23,  24.  The  Soldiers  Divide  His  Gar- 
ments Among  Themselves. 

23.  This  verse  resumes  the  narrative  of  the 
crucifixion  by  the  soldiers  at  the  point  reached 
in  verse  18 — the  narrative  concerning  the  title 
over  Christ  having  taken  the  writer  along  to 
a  somewhat  later  point.  The  connecting  par- 
ticle {ovv)  should  be  rendered  therefore,  instead 
of  then.  For,  as  a  consequence  of  their 
having  crucified  Jesus,  the  soldiers  took 
his   garments— "  the   head-gear,   the   outer 


384 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


24  They  said  therefore  among  themselves,  Let  us  not  !  24  throughout.    They  said  therefore  one   to  another, 


reud  it,  but  cast  lots  for  it,  whose  it  shall  be:  that  the 
Scripture  might  be  fultilled,  which  saith,  "They  parted 
my  raiment  among  them,  and  fur  my  vesture  they  did 
cast  lots.    These  things  therefore  the  soldiers  did. 


Let  us  not  rend  it,  but  cast  lots  for  it,  whose  it  shall 
be:  that  the  scripture  might  be  fulfilled,  wliich  sailh. 
They  parted  my  gaimenls  among  them. 
And  upon  my  vesture  did  they  cast  lots. 


o  Ps.  22  :  18. 


cloak-like  garment,  the  girdle,  and  the  sun- 
dais."  —Edershcim.  And  made  four  parts, 
to  every  soldier  a  part :  from  which  it  ap- 
pears that  they  were  but  four  in  number— a  qua- 
ternion. (Acts  12:  4.)  If,  as  many  infer  from 
Matt.  27:  54;  Mark  15:  39;  Luke  23:  47,  there 
was  a  centurion  over  the  four,  he  did  not 
share  in  the  division  of  raiment.  "It  is  gen- 
erally stated,  that  this  [division  of  the  crimi- 
nal's raiment  among  the  executioners,]  was 
the  common  Roman  custom.  But  of  this 
there  is  no  evidence,  and  in  later  times  it  was 
expressly  forbidden  (Ulpianus  'Digest,'  48, 
20,  6).  I  cannot  see  how  Keim,  and,  after 
him,  Nebe,  infers  from  this  as  certain,  that  the 
law  had  formerly  been  the  opposite." — Eder- 
sheim.  But  a  prohibitory  law  implies  a  more 
or  less  prevalent  custom,  against  which  it  was 
aimed,  and  this  custom  explains  the  word 
therefore,  by  which  John  connects  the  divi- 
sion of  the  garments  with  the  act  of  crucifix- 
ion. And  also  his  coat,  or  tunic  (x'twi-),  the 
garment  worn  next  the  skin,  and  covering  the 
whole  body  from  shoulder  to  ankle.  Noav 
the  coat  was  Avithout  seam,  woven  from 
the  top  throughout.  "  Besides  these  four 
articles  of  dress,  there  was  the  seamless^ 
woven,  inner  garment,  b\'  fiir  the  most  valua- 
ble of  all,  and  for  which,  as  it  could  not 
be  partitioned  without  being  destroyed, 
they  would  specially  cast  \ois.''  —Edersheim. 
"Specially  "—because,  as  Edersheim  thinks, 
they  had  previously  cast  lots  for  their  several 
portions  in  the  four  less  important  garments. 
But  this  is  by  no  means  certain.  Matthew, 
says,  that  they  parted  hin  garments,  casting 
lots;  and  Mark,  they  parted  his  garments, 
casting  lots  upon  them,  what  every  man  should 
take;  and  even  the  words  of  Mark  might  be 
used,  we  think,  by  one  who  intended  to  char- 
acterize the  division,  briefly,  as  one  in  which 
lots  were  used,  though  not,  perhaps,  for  every 
article.  Edersheim  remarks,  still  further: 
"  It  is  deeply  significant,  that  the  dress  of  the 
priests  was  not  sewed,  but  woven  (Sebach. 
85a),  and  especially  so,  that  of  the  high 
priest."  Having  quoted  so  freely  from  Eder- 
alieim,  "The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus,  the 


Messiah" — a  work  of  great  value — it  may  not 
be  out  of  place  to  add,  that  we  see  no  reason 
for  his  statement  regarding  the  time  when  this 
division  of  the  Saviour's  garments  was  eflFected, 
viz.:  "Before  nailing  him  to  the  cross,  the 
soldiers  parted  among  themselves  the  poor, 
worldly  inheritance  of  his  raiment."  It  was 
after,  rather  than  before,  according  to  the 
obvious  meaning  of  all  the  narratives. 

24.  Note  the  particularity  of  this  descrip- 
tion, as  if  the  writer  had  been  present,  seeing 
and  hearing.  That  the  Scripture  might 
be  fulfilled.  Nothing  was  unforeseen  or  im- 
])rovided  for  in  the  plan  of  God.  "Him,  be- 
ing delivered  up  by  the  determinate  counsel 
and  foreknowledge  of  God,  ye,  by  the  hand 
of  lawless  men,  did  crucify  and  slay,"  (Rev. 
Ver.,)  said  Peter,  to  the  men  of  Israel,  on  the 
Day  of  Pentecost.  And,  therefore,  the  apos- 
tles were  not  surprised  to  find  the  events  of 
Christ's  death  foreshadowed  or  foretold  in  the 
Old  Testament.  The  Scripture  quoted  is  the 
eighteenth  verse  of  the  twenty-second  Psalm 
— a  Psalm  which  must  be  interpreted  as  re- 
ferring to  Christ.  Perowne  believes  that  ref- 
erence to  be  t3'pical,  but  adds:  "Whether, 
however,  we  take  the  Psalm  as  t^'pical  or  pre-, 
dictive,  in  any  case,  it  is  a  prophecy  of  Christ, 
and  of  his  suflTerings  on  the  cross."  On  the 
other  hand,  Weiss  afiSrms  that  it  was  under- 
stood by  John  as  a  direct  prediction:  ^' that 
the  Scripture,  etc.,  namely,  Ps.  22:  18,  ver- 
ballj'  according  to  the  Septuagint ;  yet,  not 
understood  typically,  of  the  old  theocratic 
sufferer  {Meyer),  or  of  David  (Luthardt  and 
Godet),  but  directly,  of  Christ."  Westcott 
seems  to  agree  with  Weiss:  "The  central 
thought  in  the  original  context  is  that  the 
enemies  of  the  Lord's  Anointed  treated  him 
as  already  dead,  and  so  disposed  of  his  rai- 
ment." For  other  citations  from  Psalm  22, 
see  Matt.  27:  39,  43,  46;  John  19:  28,  below; 
and  Heb.  2:  12.  These  things  therefore 
the  soldiers  did.  Therefore,  that  is,  be- 
cause they  were  predicted  in  Scripture,  or, 
looking  a  little  more  deeply,  because  they 
were  included  in  the  purpose  God  as  made 
known  in  part  by  the  Holy  Scriptures. 


Ch.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


385 


25  <•  Now  there  stood  by  the  cross  of  Jesus  his  mother, 
and  his  luotlier's  sister,  Mary  the  wife  of  'Cleophus, 
and  Mary  Magdalene. 

26  When  Jesus  therefore  saw  his  mother,  and  "the 
discipie  standing  by,  whom  lie  loved,  he  sailh  unto  his 
mother,  ''Woman,  behold  thy  son  1 

27  Then  saith  he  to  the  discii)k',  Heboid  thy  mother! 
And  from  that  hour  that  disciple  took  her  «  unto  his 
own  home. 


25  These  things  therefore  the  soldiers  did.  But  there 
were  standing  by  the  eross  of  Jesus  his  mother,  and 
his  mother's  sister,   Mary,  X\ie  ivij'e  of   ('lopas,  and 

2G  Mary  Magdalene.  When  Jesus  therefore  saw  his 
mother,  and  the  disciple  standing  by,  uhom  he 
loved,  he  saith  unto   bis   mother.    Woman,  behold, 

27  thy  son !  Then  saith  he  to  the  di.sciple.  Behold, 
thy  mother!  And  from  that  hour  the  disciple  took 
her  unto  his  own  home. 


I  Matt.  27:  55;  Mark  15  :  40  ;  Luke  123  :  49 h  Luke  24  :  18 c  ch.  13  :  23  ;  20:  2;  21 :  7,  20, 


.(2ch.  2:  4....ecb.  1 :  11 ;  16:32. 


35-27.  Jesus  Commits   His  Mother  to 
THE  Care  of  John. 

25.  Now  there  stood.  Better:  but  there 
were  standing.  See  Kevised  Version,  above. 
By  the  cross  of  Jesus.  Mark  speaks  of  a 
group  of  three  women,  apparently  the  .same 
as  these,  with  the  exception  of  the  motlier  of 
Jesus,  as  hehohilnq  from  afar.  (>i''"-k  i5:40;  Matt. 
27:55,56.)  Thishas  been  pronounced  inconsist- 
ent with  what  is  here  said  by  John.  But  un- 
warrantably ;  f(jr  by  and/ro??i  nfar,  are  terms 
of  uncertain  force.  As  seen  from  the  city  the 
women  might  be  properly  described  as  stand- 
ing bj'  the  cross,  when,  as  seen  from  the  cross 
itself,  they  might  be  described  as  looking  on 
from  a  distance.  Besides — and  this  is  of  spe- 
cial importance— the  women  may  not  have 
remained  all  the  time  at  the  same  point. 
After  John  had  taken  the  mother  of  Jesus 
away,  the  rest  of  the  group  may  have  taken 
a  position  farther  from  the  cross.  His 
mother — who  is  not  mentioned  by  the  other 
Evangelists,  perhaps  because  she  had  gone 
away  with  John  at  the  time  they  refer  to — 
and  his  mother's  sister — probably  Salome 
(Mark)  "the  mother  of"  James  and  John, 
"Zebedee's  sons"  (Matthew.) — Mary  the 
wife  of  Cleophas— identical  with  "Mary 
the  mother  of  James  the  less,  and  Joses" 
(Mark)— and  Mary  Magdalene— mentioned 
also  by  name  in  the  first  two  Gospels.  Many 
interpreters  identify  Mary  the  wife  of  Cleo- 
phas with  his  mother's  sister;  so  that  only 
three  women  are  mentioned  by  John.  .  But  it 
is  improbable  that  there  were  two  sisters  of  the 
same  name  in  a  family;  it  is  also  improbable 
that  John  has  made  no  mention  of  one  of  the 
three  women  standing  with  the  Lord's  mother. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  Salome  was  his  mother, 
it  would  be  like  him  to  designate  her  in- 
directly as  here,  and  by  her  relation  to  the 
Lord's  mother  rather  than  by  her  relation  to 
himself. 

26.  It  was  reserved  for  John  to  relate  this 
beautiful  and  touching  incident.     Why  the  I 


earlier  Evangelists  passed  it  by  in  silence  is 
no  more  perplexing  than  their  silence  in  re- 
spect to  many  other  events  in  the  life  of 
Ciirist.  A  great  deal  must  be  omitted  in 
their  narratives;  but  only  the  Spirit  of  God 
could  guide  each  one  of  them  in  deciding 
what  it  was  best  for  him  to  insert  or  to  omit. 
Yet  that  Spirit  certainly  adapted  his  influence 
to  the  mind  and  heart  of  every  "writer,  mak- 
ing holy  use  of  tender  recollections  and  pe- 
culiar experiences,  whenever  this  could  be 
done  in  furtherance  of  truth.  In  the  light  of 
this  principle  we  can  see  why  John  would  be 
moved  to  put  on  record  this  incident.  He  re- 
membered it  perfectly.  The  words  of  his 
suffering  Master  were  few,  and  freighted  with 
kindness.  No  wonder  he  referred  to  himself 
in  such  a  connection,  as  "the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved."  "Criticism,"  says  Weiss- 
Meyer,  "finds  in  this  designation  of  himself 
an  evidence  of  vayiity  {Scholten),  or  of  as- 
sumption, offensive  self-exaltation  ( Weiss). 
But  a  consciousness  of  bqing  specially  loved 
by  the  Lord,  true,  clear,  and  still  glowing 
with  inward  strength  in  the  heart  of  the  grey 
old  inan,  is  inconceivable  without  the  deepest 
humility,  and  has  found  its  fittest  expression 
and  its  holy  right  in  the  simple  description, 
xvhoni  he  Inved.^'  Woman,  behold  thy  son  ! 
The  address,  woman,  was  entirely  respectful 
(see  Note  on  2:  4),  and  no  doubt  true  to  the 
divine-human  feeling  of  Jesus  as  well  as  pro- 
foundly kind  to  his  mother.  Behold  thy 
son  !  "  Lo,  this  man  is  to  be  thj'  son ;  show- 
ing to  thee  all  the  care  and  kindness  of  a 
son";  or,  perhaps,  "  Lo,  thy  son,"  let  this 
man  be  regarded  by  thee  as  a  son;  expect 
from  him  a  son's  care  and  love."  But  no 
paraphrase  can  be  so  appropriate  and  signifi- 
cant as  the  words  of  Jesus. 

27.  Behold  thy  mother!  "Let  her  re- 
ceive from  thee  the  love  and  tender  care 
which  thou  wouldest  render  to  a  mother." 
And  from  that  hour  that  disciple  took 
her  unto  his  own  home.     The  disciple,  not 


886 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


28  After  this,  Jesus  knowing  that  all  things  were  now 
accomplished,  "that  the  Scripture  might  be  I'uliilled, 
saith,  1  thirst. 


28     After  this  Jesus,  knowing  that  all  things  are  now 
finished,  that  the  scripture  might  be  accomplished. 


that  disciple,  is  the  correct  rendering;  but 
the  disclpLe  means,  of  course,  the  one  just 
mentioned  by  the  writer,  and  as  addressed  by 
the  Saviour.  From  that  hour,  etc.,  may 
signify  the  removal  of  the  Lord's  mother  at 
once  from  her  phice  by  the  cross  to  his  own 
residence  in  the  city.  If  so,  it  was  done  in 
order  to  withdraw  her  from  a  spectacle  of 
suffering  which  it  was  unwise  for  her  longer 
to  witness.  But  the  language  does  not  require 
us  to  believe  that  she  was  led  away  at  once 
from  Calvary.  It  may  only  mean  that 
thenceforth  John  received  the  mother  of 
Jesus  into  his  family  ;  giving  her  a  home  and 
such  care  as  he  would  have  given  had  she 
been  his  own  mother.  If,  however,  he  con- 
ducted her  immediately  to  his  abode  in  Jeru- 
salem, he  soon  returned  to  Golgotha.  Yet 
absence  for  even  an  hour  might  account  for 
his  omitting  to  record  some  of  the  Lord's 
words  on  the  cross,  as  preserved  in  the  other 
Gospels;  for  this  Evangelist  limits  his  narra- 
tive, for  the  most  part,  to  what  he  had  him- 
self seen  or  heard.  But  why  did  Jesus  select 
John,  rather  than  one  of  "his  brethren,"  to 
have  care  of  his  mother?  Possibly  because 
his  brothers  were  not  in  circumstances  to  give 
her  a  home.  Possibly,  because  they  did  not 
yet  believe  on  him.  But,  probably,  because 
John  was  specially  loved  by  the  Saviour,  and 
had  just  those  qualities  of  mind  and  heart 
which  fitted  him  to  render  the  service  con- 
templated, in  the  most  satisfactory-  manner. 

28-38.  Circumstances  of  the  Lord's 
Death. 

Jesus  was  nailed  to  the  cross  about  9  A.  M. 
(Mutt.  15:25.)  From  12  M.,  until  3  p.  M.,  a  super- 
natural darkness  covered  the  land.  (Matt.  27: 45.) 
About  S  P.  M.  was  heard  the  crj' :  "My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  (Matt. 
«7:46.)  Then  followed  the  events  which  John 
proceeds  to  relate. 

38.  After  this,  does  not  signify  "directly 
after  this,"  but  allows  of  an  interval  between 
the  events  related.  In  this  case,  several  hours 
had  passed  since  Jesus  committed  his  mother 
to  the  care  of  John — at  least,  the  three  hours 
of  darkness.  Jesus  knowing  that  all 
things  were  now  accomplished.     Better, 


with  the  Revised  Version,  that  all  things  are 
now  finished;  for  thus  the  parallelism  between 
this  expression  and  the  words  of  Jesus :  It  is 
finished,  in  verse  30,  is  preserved.  The  same 
form  of  the  same  Greek  verb  is  used  in  both 
cases,  viz. :  (TCTeAcarat. )  By  "all  things  is  here 
naturallj'  meant  his  whole  life  work  (i":4), 
including  his  giving  himself  up  to  death, 
which  was  already  accomplished  before  death 
entered." —  Weiss.  The  words,  tliat  the  Scrip- 
ture anight  be  accomplished,  (Rev.  Ver. ), 
may  be  connected,  either  with  the  preceding 
clause:  that  all  things  are  noio  finished;  or, 
with  the  following  :  saith,  I  thirst,  etc.  "With 
the  former  connection,  the  words,  saith,  I 
thirst,  and  the  act  consequent  upon  them, 
are  not  here  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  fulfill- 
ment of  Scripture;  with  the  latter,  they  are 
a  final  act  in  that  fulfillment.  Christ's  labor 
and  suffering  being  finished,  he  completes  the 
fulfilment  of  prophecy  by  seeking  an  instant's 
relief  from  thirst — and  then  expires.  This 
seems  to  us  the  true  sense  of  the  passage, 
though  the  Greek  formula,  translated  that 
the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled,  elsewhere 
refers  to  a  preceding  rather  than  to  a  subse- 
quent clause.  Westcott  pertinently  remarks: 
"The  incident  loses  its  full  significance  unless 
it  be  regarded  as  one  element  in  the  fore- 
shadowed course  of  the  Passion.  Nor  is  there 
any  diflBculty  in  the  phrase  '  are  now  finished,' 
as  preceding  it.  The  'thirst'  was  already 
felt,  and  the  feeling  included  the  confession 
of  it.  The  fulfillment  of  the  Scripture  (it 
need  scarcely  be  added)  was  not  the  object 
which  the  Lord  had  in  view  in  uttering  the 
word,  but  there  was  a  necessary  correspond- 
ence between  his  acts  and  the  divine  fore- 
shadowing of  them."  This  word  of  Jesus,  viz: 
I  thirst,  seems  to  have  followed  ver3-  closely 
on  the  cry,  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me?"  so  that  both  had  an  influence 
upon  the  b5'standers.  leading  to  the  act  which 
is  next  described.  For  Mark,  after  recording 
the  great  cry  of  Jesus,  says,  that  "some  of 
them  that  stood  by,  when  they  heard  it,  said : 
Beliold,  he  calleth  Elijah.  And  one  ran.  and. 
filling  a  sponge  full  of  vinegar,  put  it  on  a 
reed,  and  gave  him  to  drink." — (Rev.  Ver.) 


Ch.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


587 


29  Now  there  was  set  a  vessel  full  of  vinegar:  and 
"they  filled  a  sponge  with  vinegar,  and  put  it  upon 
hyssop,  and  put  it  to  his  mouth. 

;iO  Wlieu  Jesus  therefore  bad  received  the  vinegar,  he 
said,  *It  is  finished:  and  he  bowed  his  head  and  gave 
up  the  ghost. 


29  saith,  I  thirst.  There  was  set  there  a  vessel  full  of 
vinegar:  so  they  put  a  sponge  full  of  the   vinegar 

30  upon  hyssop,  and  brought  it  to  his  luouth.  When 
Jesus  therefore  had  received  the  vinegar,  he  said. 
It  is  finished:  and  he  bowed  his  head,  and  gave  up 
bis  spirit. 


;  Matt.  27:  48 6  cU.  17  :  4. 


(Mark  15:  35,  36;  comp.  Matt.  27:  47.  48.)       It    is,    hoWever, 

observable  that  neither  Matthew  nor  Mark 
mentions  any  direct  connection  between  tlie 
cry  of  Jesus  and  the  act  of  offering  him 
"vinegar"  to  drink;  nor  is  it  obvious  wliy 
that  cry,  of  itself  alone,  should  have  sug- 
gested the  idea  of  intolerable  thirst.  But  that 
cry  revealed  extreme  agony,  and  when  the 
Saviour  added  presently,  with  a  lower  voice, 
I  thirst,  there  was  some  one  ready  to  re- 
spond. Thus  the  Gospel  of  John  incidentally 
provides  a  "missing  link"  to  the  narratives 
of  Matthew  and  Mark. 

29.  Now  there  was  set  a  vessel  full  of 
vinegar.  The  Revised  Version  omits  the 
copula  now,  as  not  supported  by  the  earliest 
manuscripts;  but  the  omission  leaves  the 
meaning  of  the  clause  unchanged.  The 
vinegar  here  spoken  of,  is  supposed  to  have 
been  a  kind  of  sour  wine  mingled  with  water, 
used  by  the  soldiers — not  a  stupefying  drink, 
like  that  which  the  Saviour  had  previously 
refused.  (Matt.27: 34;  Mark  15:23.)  So  they  put  a 
sponge  full  of  the  vinegar  upon  hyssop, 
and  brought  it  to  his  mouth. — (Kev.  Ver. ) 
Scholars  are  not  yet  agreed  as  to  what  par- 
ticular plant  was  called  hyssop  by  the  Jews. 
Alford  expresses  very  well  the  prevailing 
opinion,  describing  it  "as  an  aromatic  plant, 
growing  on  walls,  common  in  the  south  of 
England,  and  on  the  Continent,  with  blue  or 
white  flowers,  and  having  stalks  about  one 
foot  and  a  half  long,  which  would,  in  this 
case,  be  long  enough  ;  the  feet  of  the  cruci- 
fied person  not  being  ordinarily  raised  above 
that  distance  from  the  ground."  See  the 
Bible  Dictionaries  under  "Hyssop."  The  first 
two  Gospels  speak  of  "a  reed"  merely,  as 
used  to  raise  the  moistened  sponge  to  the  suf- 
ferer's lips;  but  John  specifies  the  kind  of 
reed  employed.     It  was  "hyssop." 

30.  When  Jesus  therefore  had  re- 
ceived the  vinegar.  As  the  words  "I 
thirst,"  were  virtually  a  request  for  drink,  to 
relieve  for  a  moment  the  intolerable  thirst 
produced  by  hanging  on  the  cross,  so  these 
words  of  the  Evangelist  show  that  he  accepted 


the  vinegar,  given  for  his  relief  and  refresh- 
ment. It  is  finished:  and  he  bowed  his 
head,  and  gave  up  the  ghost  (or,  his  spirit.  ] 
All  that  he  was  to  do  and  suffer  in  his  eartiily 
life,  was  now  completed.  Knowing  this,  he 
appears  to  have  uttered,  strongly,  the  single 
word  which  signifies:  It  is  finished.  "Whether 
Matthew  refers  to  this  word,  when  he  says, 
that  "Jesus  cried  again  with  a  loud  voice" 
(2T:5o),  and  Mark,  when  he  says,  that  "Jesus 
uttered  a  loud  voice  (i»:37),  must  be  considered 
somewhat  doubtful ;  but  Jesus  undoubtedly 
added  to  this  cry  the  saying  preserved  by 
Luke  (23:46):  "Father,  into  thy  hands  I  com- 
mend my  spirit."  Geikie  writes:  "A  mo- 
ment more,  and  all  was  over.  The  cloud  had 
passed  as  suddenly  as  it  rose.  Far  and  wide, 
over  the  vanquished  throngs  of  his  enemies, 
with  a  loud  voice,  as  if  uttering  his  shout  of 
eternal  victory,  before  entering  into  his  glory, 
he  cried.  It  is  finished!  then,  more  gently, 
came  the  words :  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  com- 
mend my  spirit.  A  moment  more,  and  there 
rose  a  great  cry,  as  of  mortal  agony :  the 
head  fell.  He  was  dead."  But  if  the  cry  was 
distinct  from  the  word.  It  is  finished,  it  must 
have  followed  that  word  and  preceded  the 
sentence,  "Father,  into  th3' hands  I  commend 
my  spirit"— unless,  indeed,  with  the  marginal 
reading  of  the  Eevised  Version,  we  identify 
the  "cry  with  a  loud  voice"  with  the  saying, 
"Father,  into  thy  hands,"  etc.  This  seems  to 
us  a  less  probable  interpretation ;  but  Geikie's 
is  impossible.  On  the  whole,  we  reject  the 
view  that  Jesus  uttered  any  loud,  inarticulate 
cry,  "as  of  mortal  agony,"  before  expiring. 
His  physical  nature  never  conquered  his  soul, 
either  in  the  garden  or  on  the  cross.  Gave  up 
his  spirit,  is  clearer  than  gave  up  the  ghost. 
The  word  translated  gave  up  (-napi^uiKev).  sig- 
nifies properly,  delivered  up,  and  indicates  a 
perfectly  conscious,  voluntary  act.  Says 
Prof.  Milligan :  "The  choice  of  the  word 
leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Evangelist.  However  true  it  is,  that  by  the 
cruelty  of  man  the  death  upon  the  cross  was 
brought  about  as  by  its  natural  cause,  there 


388 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


31  The  Jews  therefore, «  because  it  was  the  preparation , 
6that  the  bodies  should  not  remain  upon  the  cross  on 
thesabbathday,  (for  that  sabbath  day  was  an  high  day,) 
besought  Pilate  that  their  legs  might  be  broken,  and 
that  tUey  might  be  taken  away. 

32  Then  came  the  soldiers,  and  brake  the  legs  of  the 
first,  and  of  the  other  which  was  crucified  with  him. 


31  The  Jews  therefore,  because  it  was  the  Preparation, 
that  the  bodies  should  not  remain  on  the  eross 
upon  the  sabbath  (for  the  day  of  that  sabbath  was 
a  high  day),  asked  of  Pilate  that  their  legs  might 
be  broken,   and    that  they   might  be    taken   away. 

32  The  soldiers  therefore  came,  and  brake  the  legs  of 
the  first,  and  of  the  other  who  was.  crucified  with 


a  Mark  15:  42;  ver.  42 6  Deut.  21:  23. 


was  something  deeper  and  more  solemn  in  it, 
of  which  we  must  take  account.  It  was  his 
own  free  will  to  die.  There  is  in  him  an  ever- 
present  life  and  power,  and  choice,  in  which 
he,  even  at  the  very  last  moment,  offers  him- 
self as  a  sacritice."  (Heb.  9:  u.)  And  the  Weiss- 
Meyer  Commentary  says:  "The  expression, 
'he  gave  over  (to  God)  his  spirit,'  character- 
izes his  dying  as  voluntary,  since  the  separa- 
tion of  the  soul  (or,  spirit)  from  the  body,  took 
place  by  his  consciously  and  freely  entering 
into  the  will  of  his  Father,  though  it  was 
nevertheless  accomplished  in  accordance  with 
natural  law."  That  is  to  say,  Christ  at  this 
moment,  in  harmony  with  his  Father's  will, 
allowed  his  body  to  succumb  to  the  destruc- 
tive natural  forces  assailing  it,  and  delivered 
up  his  spirit  to  God.  He  did  not  take  his  own 
life;  but  he  freely  decided  no  longer  to  pre- 
vent its  being  taken  by  sinful  men.  So  his 
natural  life  ended;  but  his  life  in  the  spirit 
continued.  And  thus  were  fulfilled  his  own 
words:  "I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I  may 
take  it  again.  No  one  taketh  it  away  from 
me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself."  (Kev.  Yer.) 
(10:18.)  The  essential  fact  is  this:  that  in  the 
supreme  act  of  his  atoning  work,  Jesus  made 
his  Father's  will  his  own  will,  and  offered 
himself  in  sacrifice  to  God.  To  the  very  last 
moment,  and  in  the  parting  of  soul  from 
body,  he  was  free,  consciously  and  perfectly 
free,  doing  all  and  suffering  all  without  con- 
straint, save  that  of  love  to  God  and  man. 

31.  The  Jews  tlierefore — namelj',  the 
leading  men  Avho  had  sought  the  death  of 
Jesus.  Because  it  Avas  the  preparation. 
The  word  preparation  has  no  article  before 
it  in  the  Greek  text,  because  it  is  used  as  a 
proper  name.  Hence,  the  Eevised  Version 
begins  the  word  with  a  CA-p\ti\\—Preparntio)i. 
And  here,  certainly,  it  means  a  day  of  prepa- 
tion  for  the  Sabbath,  not  for  the  passover. 
"Preparation"  was,  therefore,  a  name  for  the 
Christian  Friday.  "These  words,  therefore, 
so  far  from  supporting  the  view  of  those  who 
think  that  the  legal  passover  had  not  yet  been 


celebrated,  tend  rather  in  the  opposite  direc- 
tion."—Sc/tq^.  It  was  a  Roman  custom  to 
leave  the  bodies  of  criminals  to  decay  on  the 
cross;  but  the  law  of  Moses  provided,  that  if 
the  body  of  an  executed  criminal  were  hung 
on  a  tree,  it  should  not  remain  aU  night  upon 
the  tree,  but  should  be  buried  the  same  day, 
lest  the  land  be  defiled,  (oeut.  21:23.)  This  rule 
may  have  been  often  disregarded.  Indeed, 
the  Jews  are  not  said  to  have  been  influenced 
by  it  in  the  present  case,  but  by  the  fact  that  a 
specially  holy  Sabbath  was  at  hand.  Yet  the 
ritualistic  principle  determined  their  action. 
For  that  sabbath  day  was  a  high  day. 
Literally  :  for  great  was  the  day  of  that  Sab- 
bath. Its  greatness  was  due  to  the  fact  that  it 
was  the  Sabbath  of  the  passover  festival. 
That  their  legs  might  be  broken.  Evi- 
dently, in  this  case,  for  tlie  purpose  of  hasten- 
ing death.  For  persons  generally  survived 
the  sufferings  of  the  cross  more  than  one  day, 
and  sometimes  several  days.  The  breaking 
of  the  legs  was  sometimes  employed  by  the 
Romans  as  a  distinct  punishment  (Sueton, 
"August"  67;  Seneca,  "  De  Ira,"  III.  32; 
Euseb.  "H.  E."  V.  21.)  But  Lactantius 
speaks  as  if  the  crucifragiuni  were  customary, 
with  a  view  to  an  early  death.  His  words  are 
these:  "Therefore,  becau.se  fastened  to  the 
cross,  he  had  delivered  up  his  spirit,  the  exe- 
cutioners did  not  think  it  necessary  to  break 
his  bones,  as  ivas  their  custom  (sicut  mos 
eorum  ferebat),  but  they  on  13-  pierced  his 
side"  ("Inst.  Div."  IV.  26.)  And  that  they 
might  be  taken  away:  it  being  assumed 
that  they  would  soon  be  dead,  and  their  re- 
moval consistent  with  Roman  justice. 

32.  Then  came  the  soldiers — (or,  Thesol- 
diers  therefore  cayne. )  For  Pilate  had  yielded 
to  the  request  of  the  Jews,  and  had  given 
them  authority  to  employ  the  soldiers  in  tliis 
way  also.  We  understand  \>y  the  soldiers 
the  four  who  had  attended  to  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus  and  his  two  fellow-sufferers.  Prob- 
ably these  soldiers  were  still  on  guard,  near 
the  place  of  crucifixion,  possibly  two  on  either 


Ch.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


389 


33  But  when  they  came  to  Jesus, and  saw  that  he  was  I  33  him:  but  when  they  came  to  Jesus,  and  saw  that  he 
dead  already,  they  brake  not  his  legs:  |  34  was  dead  already,  they   brake  not   his   legs:    hovy- 

34  But  one  of  the  soldiers  with  u  spear  pierced  his         belt  one  of  the  soldiers   with  a  spear  pierced   his 
side  and  forthwith  "came  there  out  blood  and  water.      |       side,  and    straightway   there    came  out   blood  and 


a  I  Joha  5 :  6,  8. 


wing  of  the  line  of  crosses,  though  at  a  little 
distance,  so  as  not  to  be  annoyed  by  the  ordi- 
nary groans  of  the  sufferers.  Naturally,  then, 
two  of  them  would  break  the  limbs  of  one 
robber,  and  two  of  them  those  of  the  other 
robber,  when  they  might  all  draw  near  the 
body  of  Jesus,  now  perfectly  still  ia  death. 
It  was  cruel  and  ghastly  work;  but  they  were 
familiar  with  blood,  and  cared  little  for 
human  life.  In  the  arena,  and  on  the  battle 
field,  they  had  learned  to  despise  pain,  and 
almost  honor  ferocity. 

33.  But  when  they  came  to  Jesus,  and 
saw  that  he  was  dead  already,  they 
brake  not  his  legs.  Thus  the  certainty  of 
Christ's  death  is  vouched  for;  in  the  first 
place,  by  the  unambiguous  statement  of  John 
(ver.  30),  next,  by  his  declaration  that  the 
soldiers,  who  would  not  be  likely  to  err  in 
such  a  case,  saw  that  he  was  dead,  and, 
finally,  by  his  account  of  their  treatment  of 
his  body.  Moreover,  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  the  presence  of  John  near  the  cross  of 
his  Master,  at  this  time,  enabling  him  to  bear 
personal  witness  to  everything  which  he  re- 
lates. To  reject  this  part  of  his  Gospel  is  to 
reject  it  all. 

34.  If,  as  we  are  told,  the  soldiers  saw  that 
he  was  dead,  why  did  one  of  them  thrust  his 
spear  into  the  side  of  Jesus?  Would  not  such 
an  act  have  been  motiveless  and  absurd?  "We 
think  not.  The  soldiers  were  rough  men,  not 
unwilling  to  use  their  arms  on  slight  occasion. 
Though  they  considered  Jesus  dead,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  oneof  them,  to  make  his  death 
doubly  sure,  thrust  a  spear  into  his  side. 
Paulus  supposes  tliat  the  spear  wounded  very 
slightly  the  side  of  Jesus.  But  the  Commen- 
tary of  Weiss-Meyer  correctly  shows,  that 
"neither  the  word  itself  (since  vv<ra-eiv  is  com- 
monly the  violent  thrust  or  stab),  nor  the  per- 
son of  the  rude  soldier,  nor  the  weapon  (a 
lance  belonging  to  heavy  armor),  nor  the  de- 
sign of  the  thrust,  nor  the  size  of  the  wound, 
as  suggested  by  20:  27,  nor  the  'pierced' 
fefexei'Tao-i')  of  ver.  29,  allow  the  view  required 
in  the  interest  of  a  'seeming  death,'  that  the 


wound  inflicted  was  only  a  scratch."  And 
forthwith  came  there  out  blood  and 
water.  This  statement  of  the  Evangelist 
has  been  a  source  of  perplexity  to  Biblical 
scholars,  chiefly  because  blood  does  not  flow 
from  a  wound  inflicted  on  a  dead  body. 
Hence,  some  have  inferred  that  Jesus  was  not 
quite  dead  until  the  spear  reached  his  heart. 
But  this  inference  is  contradicted  by  the  plain 
testimony  of  the  Evangelist,  (ver.  so.  m.)  Others 
have  inferred  that  the  process  of  change  from 
a  natural  to  a  spiritual  body  began  at  the 
instant  of  death,  so  that  "the  issuing  of  the 
blood  and  water  from  his  side,  must  be  re- 
garded as  a  sign  of  life  in  death." —  Westcott, 
But  it  is  certainly  diflacult  to  believe  that  any 
such  thought  was  in  the  mind  of  the  sacred 
writer.  Indeed,  the  death  of  Christ  seems  to 
have  been  regarded  by  all  the  New  Testament 
writers  as  a  real  and  complete  death.  And 
he  was  raised  on  the  morning  of  the  third 
day,  not  by  a  process  going  on  while  he  was 
in  the  tomb,  and  completed  the  third  day. 
Of  this  modern  theory,  the  Scriptures  know 
nothing.  Dr.  Schaff  has  suggested,  that  the 
spear  wound  may  have  been  inflicted  the  in^ 
stant  after  death,  that  the  region  of  the  heart 
may  have  been  penetrated  by  the  spear,  that 
the  importance  of  the  "blood  and  water,"  in 
the  eyes  of  John,  was  wholly  due  to  their 
symbolical  meaning,  that  the  quantity  of 
"blood  and  water"  having  nothing  to  do 
with  their  meaning,  may  have  been  very 
small,  and  that  it  has  never  been  proved  that 
a  small  quantity  might  not  issue  from  a 
wound  thus  inflicted.  For  the  symbolical 
import  of  "blood  and  water,"  in  the  eyes  of 
John,  we  must  look  into  the  writings  of  this 
apostle.  And  doing  this,  we  find,  that  hlond 
represents  life  surrendered;  in  the  case  of 
Christ,  life  surrendered  in  sacrifice  for  sin 
(1:29),  or,  life  laid  down  for  the  life  of  the 
world.  (6:51-56;  10: 15.)  We  also  find  that  vjater 
represents  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  given  by  Christ, 
for  the  quickening  and  purifying  of  men. 
(4:13,14:7:38,39.)  "Cleansing  from  sin  [in  the 
sense  of  forgiveness]  and  quickening  by  the 


590 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


35  And  he  that  saw  it  bare  record,  and  his  record  is 
true ;  and  he  knoweth  that  he  saiih  true,  that  ye  might 
believe. 

3i!  For  these  things  were  done,  "that  the  scripture 
should  be  I'ultilled,  A  bone  of  him  shall  not  be  broken. 

37  And  again  another  scripture  saith,  ''  They  shall 
look  on  him  whom  they  pierced. 

38  '^  And  after  this  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  being  a  dis- 
ciple of  Jesus,  but  secretly  ■'for  fear  of  the  Jews,  be- 


So  water.  And  he  that  hath  seen  hath  borne  witness, 
and  his  witness  is  true :    and  he  knoweth  that  he 

36  saith  true,  that  ye  also  may  believe.  For  these 
things  came  to  pass   that   the  scripture  might  be 

37  fultilled,  A  bone  of  him  shall  not  be  i  broken.  And 
again  another  scripture  saith.  They  shall  look  on 
him  whom  they  pierced. 

39  And  aiter  these  tilings  Joseph  of  Arimathea, 
being  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  but  secretly   for  fear  of 


a  Ex.  12:  46;  Num.  »  :  12  ; 


Matt.  27:57;  Mark  1  j  :  42  ;  Luke  2    :  50 d  ch.9: 


Spirit  are  both  consequent  on  Christ's  death." 
—  Westcott.  Wliether  or  not  this  passage  is  to 
be  associated  with  1  John  5:5,  is  doubtful. 

35.  And  he  that  saw  it  bare  record, 
etc.  Better,  as  in  the  Revised  Version  :  And 
he  that  hath  seen  hath  borne  witness,  and  his 
witness  is  true;  and  he  knoweth  that  he  saith 
true,  that  ye  also  m.ay  believe.  In  this  verse, 
Jolin  speai<s  of  hiniself  in  the  third  person, 
and  without  giving  his  name.  See  other  pas- 
sages where  he  evidently  does  the  same  thing, 
(e.  i.?!  40 ;  18:15  sq.)  He  also  affirms  of  the  wit- 
ness he  bears,  that  it  is  true  (oAijAn-q),  that  is, 
genuine,  real,  fultilliug  the  proper  idea  of 
testimony — "all  that  testimony  can  be."  The 
word  in  the  next  clause  is  different  in  the 
original,  denoting  the  truthfulness  or  veracity 
of  the  witness.  In  other  words,  the  Evan- 
gelist assures  his  readers  that  his  testimony  is 
that  of  an  eye-witness,  whose  circumstances 
enabled  him  to  know  accurately  that  whereof 
he  has  testiiied,  and  who  is  conscious  of  hav- 
ing stated  the  exact  truth.  And  to  this  he 
adds  the  object  which  has  moved  him  to  bear 
witness  to  the  events  of  Christ's  death,  and  to 
assure  them  so  positively  of  the  trustworthy 
character  of  his  testimony,  namely — that  his 
readers  might  believe — not  merely  in  the  facts 
which  he  has  related  concerning  Chri.st,  but 
also,  and  chiefly,  through  those  facts,  in  Jesus 
Christ  himself,  as  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Saviour  of  men. 

36.  For  these  things  were  done  (or, 
came  to  pass)  that  the  scripture  should  be 
fulfilled,  A  bone  of  him  shall  not  be 
broken.  Evidently  the  Apostle  John  be- 
lieved that  the  peculiar  features  of  Christ's 
death  had  been  embraced  in  the  purpose  of 
God,  and  foreshadowed  by  the  language  of 
Scripture.  The  language  quoted  is,  we  sup- 
pose, derived  from  Ex.  12:  46:  "Neither  shall 
ye  break  a  bone  thereof,"  and  Num.  9:  12: 
"Thej-  shall  leave  none  of  it  unto  the  morn- 
ing, nor  break  any  bone  of  it."  In  the  former 
passage,  the  reference  is  to  the  lamb  of  pass- 


over,  slain  in  Egypt;  in  the  lattter  passage,  it 
is  to  the  paschal  lamb,  eaten  at  the  yearly 
passover.  But  John  could  not  have  found  in 
the  circumstance  that  the  legs  of  Jesus  were 
not  broken,  a  fulfillment  of  either  of  these 
passages,  unless  he  had  seen  in  the  paschal 
lamb  a  type  of  the  Messiah.  (Comp.  Ps. 
34 :  20. ) 

37.  They  shall  look  on  him  whom  they 
pierced.  See  Zech.  12:  10,  which  Hender- 
son translates:  "They  shall  look  unto  me 
whom  they  have  pierced."  In  the  original 
passage,  me  refers  to  Jehovah.  Hence, 
probably,  the  reluctance  of  Jewish  inter- 
preters to  allow  that  the  pronoun  whom, 
stands  for  m.e ;  hence,  also,  the  change  of 
texts  in  several  manuscripts  from  »ne  to  hi}n. 
John  substitutes  him  for  me,  because  he  is 
speaking  of  the  One  to  whom  they  were 
looking.  He  does  not  change  the  meaning  of 
the  original  expression,  but  merely  adjusts  it 
to  his  narrative.  And  he  follows  the  Hebrew 
rather  than  the  Septuagint  Version,  because 
the  latter  does  not  give  the  sense  of  the  former. 
The  passage  seems  to  be  quoted  by  Jolin  as 
partly  fulfilled  by  the  thrust  of  the  soldier's 
spear,  piercing  the  side  of  Jesus;  for  this  act 
he  regards  as  the  act  of  the  Jewish  people,  to 
whom  Jesus  had  been  delivered  up  for  cruci- 
fixion. (Comp.  Acts  2:  23.)  Of  course,  their 
looking  to  him  for  blessing  was  expected  in 
the  future;  for  the  people  were  now  piercing 
him,  and  the  language  of  Zechariah  supposes 
that  the  looking  would  be  subsequent  to  the 
pierci7ig.  We  may  therefore  see,  in  John's  use 
of  this  Scripture,  evidence  that  he  regarded 
it  as  in  some  true  sense  Messianic,  that  he 
considered  Jesus  the  true  Messiah  and  proper 
representative  of  Jehovah,  who  was  the  sub- 
ject of  the  ancient  prophecy  quoted,  and  that 
he  also,  as  well  as  Paul,  expected  the  ultimate 
conversion  of  Israel. 

38-42.  The  Burial  of  Jesus  by  Joseph 
OF  Arimathea  and  Nicodemus. 

3S.  And  after  this,  should  be,  And  after 


Cii.  XIX.] 


JOHN. 


391 


sought  Pilate  that  he  might  take  away  the  body  of 
Jesus:  and  Pilate  gave  him  leave.  He  came  therefore, 
and  took  the  body  of  Jesus. 

39  Aud  there  came  also  °  Nicodemus,  (which  at  the 
first  came  to  Jesus  by  night,)  aud  brought  a  mixture  of 
myrrh  and  aloes,  about  an  hundred  pound  weight. 


the  Jews,  asked  of  Pilate  that  he  might  take  away 
the  body  of  Jesus:  and  Pilate  gave  him  leave.  He 
39  came  therefore,  and  took  away  his  body.  Aud 
there  came  also  Nicodemus,  he  who  at  the  first 
came  to  him  by  night,  bringing  a  'mixture  of 
myrrh  and   aloes,  about  a  hundred   pound  weight. 


a  ch.  3:1,2;  7  :  50 b  Some  uDcieitt  authorities  read,  roU. 


these     things — referring,    doubtless,    to     the 
events  related   in   the   preceding  paragraph, 
though   the  phrase   is   one  that  may  have  a 
more  general  reference  to  the  whole  scene  of 
the    crucifixion.      Joseph    of  Arimathea, 
being  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  but  secretly, 
for  fear  of  the  Jews.     Luke  speaks  of  Ari- 
mathea  as   "a  city  of   the   Jews,"   meaning 
probably  a  city  of  Judea.     It  is  thought  to 
have   been  identical  with  Ramah,  the  birth- 
place of  Samuel   the  prophet   (see  1  Samuel 
1:  1,  19),  which  is  called  by  the  Seventy,  Ar- 
mathaim,  andby  Josephus,  Armatha.  ("Ant." 
V.  10,  2.)     It   was  situated   about   five  miles 
north  of  Jerusalem,  on  the   way  to   Bethel. 
Matthew  calls  Joseph  a  "rich   man"  (27:57), 
Mark,  an  "honourable  counsellor,  which  also 
waited  for  the  kingdom  of  God"  {n-.a)^  and 
Luke,  "a  counsellor,  and  he  was  a  good  man 
and  just;   the  same  had  not  consented  to  the 
counsel  and  deed  of  them."   (23:50,5i.)     From 
John's   remark,  that   he   was  a   disciple    of 
Jesus,  but  secretly,  for  fear  of  the  Jews, 
we  conclude  that  he  considered  the  character 
of  Joseph  very  similar  to  that  of  Nicodemus. 
Both  were  members  of  the  Sanhedrin.     Both 
were  drawn  to  Jesus  by  his  spirit  and  teach- 
ing.    Both  were  convinced  that  he  was  from 
God,  and,  perhaps,  the  promised  Christ.     Both 
refused  to  take  any  part  in  persecuting  him. 
(See  John  7:  50,  51,  and  Luke  23 :  51.)     Both 
testified  their  respect  and  perhaps  reverence 
for    Jesus   after   his   crucifixion.      Yet,    both 
were  afraid  to  make  a  public  avowal  of  their 
discipleship,  because  they  dreaded  the  fierce 
fanaticism   of   their   associates    in   the   Great 
Council.      Besought     Pilate.      The    word 
translated  besought,  might,   with   equal   or 
greater  propriety,  have  been  translated  asked; 
for  there  is  nothing  in  the  word  itself,  or  in 
the    circumstances   related,    which    points  to 
entreaty,  or,  indeed,  to  anj'thing  more  than  a 
simple  request.     There  was  no  law  or  custom 
violated  by  the  act  of  Joseph  ;  and,  if  he  had 
watched  the  course  of  events  during  the  day, 
he  had  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Pilate  would 
be  unwilling  to  grant  his  request.     If  he  had 


any  one  to  fear,  it  was  not  the  governor,  but 
the  chief  priests.  When,  therefore,  Mark 
says,  that  "he  boldly  went  in  unto  Pilate, 
and  asked  for  the  b</dy  of  Jesus,"  we  take  the 
word  "boldly"  to  be  expressive  of  his  spirit 
and  bearing,  in  view  of  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  hour,  but  do  not  regard  it  as  implying 
that  his  request  was  likely  to  provoke  the 
anger  of  Pilate.  The  governor  was  probably 
at  the  time  glad  to  show  any  possible  favor  to 
the  friends  of  Jesus,  as  a  furtiier  token  of  his 
displeasure  with  the  Jews.  Accordingly, 
having  assured  himself  that  Jesus  was  already 
dead  (Matt.  15:44),  he  gave  Jcjseph  leave  to  take 
away  his  body;  and  Joseph,  in  consequence 
of  this  permission,  "  came  therefore  and 
took  the  body  of  Jesus."  This  is  the 
simple  record :  unimpassioned,  unadorned, 
natural,  trustworthy, 

39.  But  Joseph  of  Arimathea  was  not  alone 
in  showing  respect  to  his  crucified  Lord  by 
attending  to  the  burial  of  his  body.  There 
came  also  Nicodemus  (which  at  the  first 
came  to  Jesus  by  night),  and  brought  a 
mixture  of  myrrh  and  aloes,  about  a 
hundred  pound  weight.  Thus  John  takes 
occasion,  in  a  quiet  way,  to  recall  the  bearing 
of  this  "teacher  of  Israel,"  when  he  first 
came  timidly  to  Jesus.  Then  he  came  by 
night;  now  he  testifies  openly  his  regard  for 
the  crucified  One.  The  quantity  of  myrrh  and 
alo3s — about  a  hundred  pound  weight — 
has  been  thought  unreasonable.  But  there 
seems  to  have  been  no  rule,  save  that  of  affec- 
tion or  ability,  by  which  the  amount  of  aro- 
matics  used  in  burial  should  be  determined. 
The  more  exalted  and  beloved  the  person 
whose  body  was  to  be  laid  away  in  a  tojnb, 
the  greater,  as  a  rule,  would  be  the  costliness 
and  amount  of  the  spices  used.  Thus  in  2 
Chron.  16:  14,  it  is  said  of  Asa  the  king,  that 
"they  buried  him  in  his  own  sepulchre,  which 
he  had  made  for  himself  in  the  city  of  David ; 
and  laid  him  in  the  bed  which  was  filled  with 
sweet  odours  and  divers  kinds  of  spices,  pre- 
pared by  the  apothecaries'  art."  Jesus  was 
loved   and  honored  by  Nicodemus,  and  we 


392 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XIX. 


40  Then  took  they  the  body  of  Jesus,  and  "wound  it 
in  linen  clothes  with  the  spices,  as  the  manner  of  the 
Jews  is  to  bury. 

41  Now  in  the  place  where  he  was  crucified  there  was 
a  garden  ;  and  in  the  garden  a  new  sepulchre,  wherein 
was  never  man  yet  laid. 

42  'There  laid  they  Jesus  therefore,  =  because  of  the 
Jews'  preparation  day ;  for  the  sepulchre  was  nigh  at 
hand. 


40  So  they  took  the  body  of  Jesus,  and  bound  it  in 
linen  cloths  with  the  spices,  as  the  custom  of  the 

41  Jews  is  to  bury.  Now  in  the  place  where  he  was 
crucified  there  was  a  garden  ;   and  in  the  garden  a 

42  new  tomb  wherein  was  never  man  yet  laid.  There 
then  because  of  the  Jews'  Preparation  (for  the  tomb 
was  nigh  at  hand)  they  laid  Jesus. 


a  Acts  5:  6 b  Isa.  53  :  9 c  vcr.  31. 


need  not  hesitate  to  say,  with  Westcott:  "His 
intention  wtis,  without  doubt,  to  cover  the 
body  completely  with  the  mass  of  aromatics; 
for  this  purpose  the  quantity  was  not  excessive 
as  a  costly  gift  of  devotion." 

40.  Then  took  they,  etc.  Better:  There- 
fore, or,  so  they  took  the  body  of  Jesus.  For 
this  act  was  a  natural  consequence  of  what 
they  had  done  before,  as  related  in  ver.  38, 
39.  The  style  of  John  is  remarkable  for  its 
logical  coherence,  and  when  he  uses  connect- 
ives it  is  generally  easy  to  account  for  his 
selection  of  one  rather  than  another.  And 
w^ound  it  in  linen  clothes  with  the  spices, 
as  the  manner  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury. 
The  verb  in  the  last  clause  may  be  para- 
phrased, to  prepare  for  burial,  (as  Schaft'), 
though  the  expression,  to  bury,  may  fairly  be 
said  to  include  such  preparation  as  is  here  de- 
scribed. If  the  Jews  has  the  same  shade  of 
meaning  in  this  passage  which  it  commonly 
has  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  John  means  to  say 
that  the  preparations  for  burial  were,  in  this 
case,  such  as  were  made  by  leading  Jews  at 
the  death  of  a  friend  or  relative.  Jesus  was 
buried  as  carefully  and  lovingly,  and  with  as 
free  an  expenditure,  as  custom  would  justify 
when  persons  of  wealth  and  distinction  were 
laid  in  their  costly  tombs.  He  was  with  the 
rich  in  his  death,  (isa.  53:  9.)  Geikie  thus  de- 
scribes the  scene:  "The  whole  bodj',  stained 
as  it  was  with  blood,  was  tenderly  washed, 
and  then  wrapped  in  broad  bands  of  linen, 
within  which  were  thicklj'  strewn  powdered 
myrrh  and  aloes,  which  had  been  provided 
by  Nicodemus,  for  the  imperfect  embalmment 
practiced  by  the  Jews.  The  ends  of  the  band- 
ages were  apparently  secured  on  the  inner 
side  with  gum,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Egj'ptian 
dead.  A  white  cloth  was  finally  laid  over  the 
face,  after  a  last  kiss,  the  pledge  of  undying 
love." 

41.  Now  in  the  place  w^here  he  was 
crucified  there  was  a  garden.  The  word 
place  is  indefinite.     It  may  denote  a  larger 


or  a  smaller  area,  according  to  circumstances. 
In  the  present  instance,  we  have  nothing  to 
guide  us,  unless  it  be  the  fact  that  the  place 
of  crucifixion  was  near  the  city,  but  outside 
its  walls.  In  and  near  cities,  particular  places, 
having  names  of  their  own,  are  relatively 
small;  and  we  are  therefore  led  to  think  that 
one  spot  would  scarcely  be  described  as  near 
another,  if  it  were  many  rods  distant.  And 
in  the  garden  a  new  sepulchre,  Avherein 
\vas  never  man  yet  laid.  Matthew  de- 
scribes this  as  Joseph's  "new  tomb,  which  he 
had  hewed  out  in  the  rock."  (27:6o.)  Mark 
describes  it  as  "a  sepulchre  which  was  hewn 
out  of  a  rock."  (i5:46.)  Luke  describes  it  as 
"a  sepulchre  that  was  hewn  in  stone"  (as: 53), 
adding,  with  John,  "wherein  never  man  be- 
fore was  laid."  This  last  point  is  probably 
mentioned,  in  order  to  call  the  reader's  atten- 
tion to  the  honor  which  was  providentially, 
yet  most  willingly  paid  to  Jesus,  in  the  place 
of  his  burial.  "It  was  in  'the  court'  of  the 
tomb  that  the  hasty  embalmment — if  such  it 
may  be  called — took  place.  None  of  Ciirist's 
former  disciples  seem  to  have  taken  part  in 
the  burying.  .  .  .  Only  a  few  faithful  ones, 
notably  among  them,  Mar\-  Magdalene,  and 
the  other  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  stood 
over  against  the  tomb,  watching  at  some  dis- 
tance where  and  how  the  body  of  Jesus  was 
laid.  It  would  scarcely  have  been  in  accord- 
ance with  Jewish  manners,  if  these  women 
had  mingled  more  closely  with  the  two  San- 
hedrists  and  their  attendants.  From  where 
they  stood  they  could  have  had  only  a  dim 
view  of  what  passed  within  the  court;  and 
this  may  exjdain  how,  on  their  return,  they 
prepared  'spices  and  ointments'  for  the  more 
full  honors  which  they  hoped  to  pay  the  dead 
after  the  Sabbath  was  past." — Edersheim. 

42.  There  laid  they  Jesus  therefore, 
because  of  the  Jews'  preparation  day: 
for  the  sepulchre  was  nigh  at  hand.  See 
the  Revised  Version  above.  This  has  been 
thought  to  show  that  they  did  not  intend  to 


Ch.  XX.l 


JOHN. 


393 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE  "first  day  of  the  week  coiueth  Mary  Magdalene  |    1      Now  on  the  first  day  of  tlic  week  conieth  Mary 
early,  when  it  was  yet  dark,  unto  the  sepulchre,         Magdalene  early,  while   it   was  yet  dark,  unto  the 
and  seetii  the  stone  taken  away  from  the  sepulchre.         |       tomb,  and   seeth   the  stone   taken    away  Irom   the 


a  Matt.  28  :  :  ;  Murk  16  :  1 ;  Luke  24  :  1. 


leave  him  in  that  tomb  as  his  permanent 
burial  place.  It  seems  to  us  rather  that  the 
circumstances  of  the  hour  led  to  his  being 
placed  in  that  new  tomb.  Two  reasons  are 
brought  together  by  John.  It  was  the  Jews' 
preparation  day;  therefore  the  need  of  haste; 
and  the  place  was  near,  and  could  be  used 
without  waste  of  time  in  going  to  a  remote 
burial-place.  The  Eevised  Version  follows 
the  order  of  the  Greek  text  more  closely 
than  the  Common  Version.  There  there- 
fore. .  .  .  they  laid  Jesus.  The  whole 
sentence  is  more  impressive  when  it  is 
made  to  close  with  the  principal  act. 


was  yet  dark ;  Mark,  v)heii  the  sun  was  risen. 
If  Mark,  then,  contradicts  John,  does  he  not 
also  contradict  himself?  But  the  latter  is  not 
to  be  supposed.  "He  must  therefore  have 
employed  the  expression,  when  tlie  sun  was 
risen,  in  a  broader  and  less  definite  sense  than 
a  literal  interpretation  of  the  words  would 
give."  "As  the  sun  is  the  source  of  light  and 
day,  and  his  earliest  rays  produce  the  contrast 


Ch.  20:  1-10.    The  Tomb  of  Jesus 
Found  Empty. 

1.  The  first  day  of  the  week  cometh 
Mary  Magdalene  early,  when  it  Avas 
yet  dark,  unto  the  sepulchre.  This 
verse  is  introduced  b3'  a  particle  in  the 
Greek  text  which  may  be  translated  but 
or  now.  John  passes  over  a  great  many 
particulars  mentioned  by  some  of  the 
other  Evangelists.  Thus,  he  says  nothing 
in  respect  to  the  putting  of  a  large  stone 
at  the  door  of  the  sepulchre  (Matt,  a::  60;  Mark 
15:46),  or  the  sealing  of  the  stone  and  the 
setting  of  a  watch  by  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees  (Man.  27:  62-66),  or^the  earth- 
quake, the  rolling  away  of  the  stone  hy 
an  angel,  and  the  terror  of  the  -keepers 
(Mate.  28: 2-4),  or  the  purchasc  of  spices  by  the 
women  after  the  Sabbath,  with  a  view  to 
anointing  Jesus'  body  (Markie.  i;  comp.  Luke24:i), 
or  the  coming  of  these  women,  including  Mary 
Magdalene,  in  a  group  to  the  tomb  with  the 
spices  early  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.    (Matt. 

28:1;  Ma.k  16:  2-4;  Luke  24:  1-3.)        WhyheOmitS    SO 

much,  we  need  not  attempt  to  explain ;  why  he 
inserts  just  what  he  does,  can  onlj'  be  a  mat- 
ter of  speculation.  It  is  noticeable  that  John 
speaks  of  the  time  when  Mary  Magdalene 
came  to  the  sepulchre  as  early,  ^vhen  it  was 
yet  dark.  But  Mark  speaks  of  the  women  as 
coming  to  the  sepulchre  very  early  .  .  .  when 
the  sun  was  risen. — Rev.  Ver.  John  saj's, 
early;  M-av^,  very  early  ;  John  says,  when  it 


STONE  AT   A  JEWISH   SEPULCHRE. 

between  night  and  dawn,  so  the  term,  sun- 
rising,  might  easily  come,  in  popular  usage, 
by  a  metonomy  of  cause  for  effect,  to  be  put 
for  all  that  earlier  interval  when  his  rays,  still 
struggling  with  darkness,  do  yet  usher  in 
the  day.  Accordingly,  we  find  such  a  popu- 
lar usage  existing  among  the  Hebrews  and  in 
the  Old  Testament." — Robinson's  "Greek 
Harmon}-  of  the  Gospels,"  p.  230  sq.  "But, 
it  is  also  possible  that  Mark  refers  by  the 
words,  'very  early,'  to  the  time  when  the 
women  started  from  their  lodgings  to  repair 
to  the  tomb  ;  and  by  the  words,  '  when  the  sun 
was  risen,'  to  the  time  when   they  were  all 


394 


JOHK 


[Ch.  XX. 


2  Then  she  runneth,  and  coiueth  to  Simon  Peter,  and 
to  the  "other  disciple,  whom  Jesus  loved,  and  saith  unto 
them,  They  have  taketi  away  the  Lord  out  of  the  sep- 
pulcbre,  and  we  know  not  where  they  have  hiid  him. 

3  '  Peter  therefore  went  forth,  and  that  other  disciple, 
aud  came  to  the  sepulchre. 


2  tomb.  She  runneth  therefore,  and  cometh  to  Simon 
Peter,  and  to  the  other  disciple,  whom  Jesus  loved, 
and  saith  unto  them,  They  have  taken  away  the  Lord 
out  of  the  tomb,  and  we  know  not  where  they  have 

3  laid  him.    Peter  therefore  went  forth,  aud  the  other 


ich.  13:23;  19:26;  21:  7,  20,  24....6Luk  24:  12. 


assembled  at  the  tomb.  This  interpretation  is 
defended  at  lengtli  by  Gilbert  West,  in  his 
treatise  on  the  '  Itesurrection  of  Christ,'  and 
it  is  far  more  reasonable  than  the  hypothesis 
of  a  contradiction  between  two  expressions  of 
Mark,  found  in  one  and  the  same  verse." 
(See  the  writer's  treatise  on  the  "Miracles  of 
Christ  as  Attested  by  the  Evangelists,"  p. 
281-2.)  And  seeth  the  stone  taken  away 
from  the  sepulchre.  This  remark  presup- 
poses the  placing  of  a  stone  at  tlie  door  of  the 
sepulchre,  as  related  by  Matthew  and  Mark, 
though  not  by  John. 

2.  Then  she  runneth,  and  cometh  to 
Simon  Peter,  etc.  The  connective  (ovv), 
should  be  translated  therefore,  instead  of  ihen; 
for  the  running  to  tell  Peter  and  John  was  a 
consequence  of  what  she  saw,  and  of  the  in- 
ference which  she  drew  from  the  sight.  She 
did  not  stop  to  examine  the  tomb;  but  con- 
cluded from  the  taking  away  of  the  stone  that 
the  body  of  Jesus  had  been  carried  away. 
But  the  other  women  (who  had  come  to  the 
tomb  with  her,  Mar^'  the  mother  of  James  and 
Joses,  and  Salome  the  mother  of  James  and 
John),  appear  to  have  tarried  awhile  to  ex- 
amine the  place  more  carefully.  Indeed, 
they  went  into  the  sepulchre,  but  did  not  find 
the  body  of  Jesus.  Yet  they  were  permitted 
to  see  a  vision  of  angels  Matthew  and  Mark 
speak  of  one — the  former  calling  him  "the  an- 
gel," and  the  latter,  "a  young  man  sitting  on 
the  right  side,  clothed  in  a  long  white  gar- 
ment"  (Matt.  28:  5;    Mark  16:    5);    but    Lukc   SayS, 

that  "  two  men  stood  by  them  in  .shining  gar- 
ments." (24:  4.)  Probably,  one  of  the  two  was 
prominent,  saying  the  words  that  are  reported. 

(Matt.  28:   5-7;    Mark  16:   6-7;    Luke  24:  5-7.)        Yct,     CVen 

these  women  did  not  long  remain  in  the  sep- 
ulchre. Admonished  by  the  angel, they  quickly 
departed  from  it  "with  fear  and  great  joy," 
and  ran  to  announce  the  resurrection  to  the 
disciples.  On  their  way  Jesus  met  them,  cry- 
ing, "Hail!"  And  dAtwing  near,  they  held 
him  by  the  feet  and  worshiped  him.  (Matt.2S: 

8-10;  Mark  16:  8;  Luke  24:  9-11.)       In    this    grOUp    there 

was  one  woman  not  before  named,  Joanna 


(Luke24:4);  perhaps  there  were  a  few  others. 
Meanwhile,  Mary  Magdalene  had  doubtless 
found  Peter  and  John,  and  they  were  hasten- 
ing to  the  tomb.  For  if,  as  we  suppose,  the 
close  of  Mark's  Gospel  is  genuine,  the  state- 
ment that  Jesus  appeared^rsi;  to  Mary  Magda- 
lene must  be  regarded  as  relative  to  the  other 
appearances  there  related,  especially  to  "after 
that"  in  Mark  16:  12;  and  "afterward" 
in  Mark  16:14.  (Comp.  "Robinson's  Har- 
mony," p  232.)  They  have  taken  away  the 
Lord  out  of  the  sepulchre,  and  we  know 
not  where  they  have  laid  him.  This  lan- 
guage indicates  very  clearly  that  the  thought 
of  Christ's  resurrection  had  not  entered  her 
mind  while  returning  to  the  city,  and  confirms 
the  view  that  she  had  left  before  the  other 
women  entered  the  tomb  and  saw  the  vision 
of  angels;  for  the  angel  had  said  to  them: 
"I  know  that  ye  seek  Jesus,  which  was  cruci- 
fied. He  is  not  here:  for  he  is  risen,  as  he 
said."  Possibly  her  words.  We  know  not 
where  they  have  laid  him,  point  to  some 
brief  communication  of  views  to  one  another 
by  the  women,  as  they  drew  near  the  tomb 
and  saw  that  the  stone  was  taken  away — these 
views  being  represented  by  the  expression, 
"  IFe  know  not,"  etc.  If  so,  the  first  impres- 
sion on  all  their  minds  was  the  same.  They 
all  supposed  that  the  body  of  Jesus  had  been 
removed  from  the  tomb  by  the  hands  of  his 
foes.  And  it  is  certainly  possible,  that  the 
scenes  of  the  trial  and  crucifixion  had  so 
deeply  impressed  on  their  minds  the  wenk- 
ness  and  mortality  of  his  physical  nature  as 
to  make  his  resurrection  almost  incredible  to 
any  of  them.  Death  had  triumphed  so  com- 
pletely and  terriblj',  as  it  seemed,  over  his 
lacerated  and  exhausted  body,  that  they  could 
not  think  of  that  body  as  restored  to  life. 

3.  Peter  therefore  went  forth,  and  that 
other  disciple,  and  came  to  the  sepul- 
chre. Notice  the  precedence  given  to  Peter 
in  this  narrative,  as  almost  everywhere  else  in 
the  Gospel.  For  the  construction  is  not: 
"Peter  and  the  other  disciple  went  forth"; 
but,   "Peter   went  forth,  and   the   other  dis- 


Ch.  XX.] 


JOHN. 


395 


4  So  they  rau  both  together:  and  tlio  oilier  disciple 
did  outruu  I'eter,  and  came  tirst  to  the  sepulchre. 

5  And  he  stooping  down,  and  loolciny  in,  saw  "the 
linen  clothes  lying;  yet  went  he  not  iu. 


4  disciple,  and  they  went  toward  the  tomb.     And  they 
ran  both  together:    and  the  other   disciple  outran 

5  I'eter,  and  came  tirst  to  the  toujli;  and  stooping  and 
looking  in,  he  seeth    the   linen    cloths  lying;   yet 


ciple"  (Rev..Ver.),  the  verb  being  singular,  as 
if  the  writer  thought  at  first  of  Peter  only. 
"The  other  examples  of  tliis  construction  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel  tend  to  show  that  here  John 
intends  to  set  forth  Peter  as  the  main  person 
in  the  narrative  :  thus  the  whole  ground  is  cut 
away  from  those  who  hold  that  the  design  of 
this  section  is  to  bring  'the  other  disciple'  into 
peculiar  prominence." — Schaff.  Perhaps  the 
words  rendered,  came  to  the  sepulchre, 
would  be  more  exactly  represented  by  were 
coming  toward  the  sepulchre,  unless  it  would 
be  still  better  to  say,  were  going  toward  the 
sepulchre.  For  there  appears  to  be  no  good 
reason  why  the  first  verb  (i^ri\e€v)  should  be 
rendered  "went  forth,"  and  the  second  verb, 
(ripxovTo)  be  rendered  "were  coming.'^  The 
mental  stand-point  of  the  writer  probably  re- 
mained the  same  in  writing  the  whole  verse. 

4.  So  they  ran  both  together.  And, 
rather  than  so,  is  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
connective.  The  verb  ran,  is  in  the  imper- 
fect tense — were  running.  John  recalls  the 
scene  perfectly  and  pictures  it  to  our  minds. 
And  the  other  disciple  did  outrun  Peter, 
and  came  first  to  the  sepulchre.  It  has 
generally  been  supposed  that  John  was 
younger  than  Peter,  and  that  his  greater  fleet- 
ness  was  due  to  his  comparative  youth.  But, 
two  men  of  the  same  age  would  not  commonly 
be  able  to  run  with  equal  swiftness;  and  con- 
siderable difference  of  age  would  be  necessary 
to  account  fur  diflTerence  of  speed  in  running. 
It  seems  to  us,  therefore,  that  we  neither  have, 
nor  need,  any  explanation  of  the  fact  that 
John  outran  Peter.  Probably,  it  was  men- 
tioned on  account  of  what  follows,  and,  espe- 
cially because  Peter,  though  later  in  reach- 
ing the  tomb,  was  first  to  enter  it. 

5.  And  he  stooping  down,  and  looking 
in.  The  reader  will  observe  that  the  words, 
and  looking  in,  are  italicised  in  the  Common 
Version,  to  show  that  there  is  nothing  answer- 
ing to  them  in  the  original  text.  On  the  other 
hand,  these  words  appear  in  the  Revised 
"Version  as  a  part  of  the  proper  translation. 
Which,  then,  is  more  faithful  to  the  original, 
the  Common  Version,  or  the  Revised?     The 


answer  will  illustrate  a  diflBculty  often  met 
by  tninslators.  Tlie  single  participle  of  the 
Greek  text  (irapaKv\^a.<;),  signifies,  in  classic  wri- 
ters, according  to  Liddell  and  Scott:  1.  ''To 
stoop  sideways ;  2.  To  stoop  for  the  purpose 
of  looking  at."  In  the  New  Testament,  ac- 
cording to  Grimm,  it  signifies  ''to  bend  towards 
an  object  in  order  to  behold  it;  to  look  at,  with 
head  inclined,  to  look  at,  with  body  inclined," 
that  is,  stooping  or  bending  towards  an  object 
for  the  purpose  of  inspecting  it.  In  the  one 
participle,  then,  we  have  tiie  two  ideas  of 
stooping  towards  and  looking  at,  distinctly, 
though  not  separately,  expressed;  and  noth- 
ing is  really  added  to  the  sense  of  the  original 
by  translating,  with  the  Revised  Version, 
stooping  and  looking  in.  At  tlie  same  time,  it 
is  evident  that  the  words  may  be  wholly 
omitted  in  translating,  without  obscuring  the 
thought,  because  the  looking  is  presupposed 
by  the  next  words:  saw  the  linen 
clothes  lying.  Cloths  is  preferable  to 
clothes;  for  the  reference  is  to  the  bandages 
in  which  the  body  was  wrapped,  and  not  to 
any  articles  of  raiment.  Yet  went  he  not 
in.  Language  perfectly  characteristic  of  this 
Evangelist:  certainly  not  the  language  of 
egotism,  but  rather  of  vivid  recollection.  If 
"the  other  disciple,"  is  the  writer,  and  he  re- 
members that  he  outran  Peter,  coming  first  to 
the  sepulchre,  he  also  remembers  that  he  only 
ventured  to  stoop  down  and  look  into  the  sep- 
ulchre. Why  he  paused  just  there,  and 
allowed  his  companion  to  go  before  him  in  the 
more  thorough  examination  of  the  vacant 
tomb,  he  does  not  intimate.  We  may  rea- 
sonably conjecture  that  lie  was  arrested  for  the 
time  by  a  feeling  of  awe  and  reverence  at  the 
mystery  which  was  opening  itself  slowly  to 
his  mind.  Perhaps  he  felt  somewhat  as  Closes 
did  when  he  heard  the  voice  out  of  the  flames: 
"Put  oflP  thy  shoes  from  oflf"  thy  feet,  for  the 
place  whereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground." 
(Kx.  3:  5.)  But  John  simply  describes  the  events 
as  they  occurred.  We  cannot  see  in  this  nar- 
rative any,  even  the  slightest,  trace  of  rivalry 
between  himself  and  Peter,  or  of  an^",  even 
the  slightest  desire  to  exalt  himself.     He  is  in- 


396 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XX. 


6  Then  coiueth  Simon  Peter  following  him,  and  went 
into  the  sepulchre,  and  seetli  the  linen  clothes  lie, 

7  And  "the  napkin,  that  was  about  his  head,  not 
lying  with  the  linen  clothes,  but  wrapped  together  in  a 
place  by  itself. 

8  Then  went  in  also  that  other  disciple,  which  came 
first  to  the  sepulchre,  and  he  saw,  and  believed. 

9  For  as  yet  they  knew  not  the  'scripture,  that  he 
must  rise  again  Irom  the  dead. 


6  entered  he  not  in.  Simon  Peter  therefore  also 
conieth,  following  him,  and  entered  into  the  tomb; 

7  and  he  beh-oldeth  the  linen  cloths  lying,  and  the 
napkin,  that  was  upon  his  head,  not  lying  with 
the    linen    cloths,  but   rolled   up   in    a   place  by  it- 

8  self.  Then  entered  in  therefore  the  other  disciple 
also,  who    came    tirst    to  the    tomb,   and    he    saw, 

9  and  believed.  For  as  yet  they  knew  not  the 
scripture,  that  he  must  rise  again  from  the  dead. 


ach.  11:  51 b  Ps.  16:  10;  Acts  2:  25-31 ;  13:  U,  35. 


tent  upon  one  thing — that  is,  upon  showing,  by 
the  most  certain  proofs,  that  Jesus  rose  from 
the  dead. 

6,  7.  Then  cometh  Simon  Peter,  etc. 
The  Revised  Version  is,  in  some  respects,  an 
improvement  of  the  Common  Version :  Simon 
Peter  therefore  also  cometh,  following  him, 
and  entered  into  the  tomb.  Fearless  and  uii- 
liesitating,  Peter,  observing  the  tomb  to  be 
ojjen,  entered  into  it  without  a  moment's  de- 
lay, prepared  to  scrutinize  everything  there, 
and  learn  the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of 
Mary's  report.  And  seeth  the  linen  clothes 
{clotli,s)\ie.  Evidently  the  same  do^/ts- which 
John  had  seen,  looking  into  the  sepulchre. 
But  the  verb  used  is  not  the  same.  To  de- 
scribe his  own  sight  of  the  cloths,  John  uses 
a  verb  (/SAeVet),  which  denotes  simple  sight  as 
distinguished  from  intent  regard;  but  in  de- 
scribing Peter's  sight  of  them,  he  employs  a 
verb  (Sewpei),  which  signifies  a  more  earnest 
observant  gaze.  The  change  of  word  seems 
to  have  been  intentional.  Peter's  survey  of 
the  tomb  was  more  searching  and  exact  than 
that  of  John.  He  was  now,  as  ever  in  his  best 
moments,  the  prompt,  keen-sighted,  practical 
man,  suffering  nothing  which  had  any  bear- 
ing on  the  removal  of  Jesus  from  the  tomb  to 
escape  his  notice;  while  the  mind  of  John 
was,  perhaps,  already  rising  to  higher  and 
more  spiritual  questions.  At  an3'  rate,  he 
gives  a  certain  precedence  to  the  scrutiny  of 
the  place  by  Peter,  as  if  it  were  more  inten- 
tional and  thorough  than  his  own.  Accord- 
ingly, Peter  beholds  not  only  the  cloths  lying, 
but  also  the  napkin  that  Avas  about  his 
head,  not  lying  with  the  linen  clothes 
(cloths),  but  wrapped  together  in  a  place 
by  itself.  "There  were  no  traces  of  haste. 
The  deserted  tomb  bore  the  marks  of  perfect 
calm.  The  grave-clothes  had  been  carefully 
removed,  which  would  be  a  work  of  time  and 
difficulty,  and  laid  in  two  separate  places.  It 
was  clear,  therefore,  that  the  body  had  not 
been  stolen  by  enemies;  it  was  scarcely' less 


clear  that  it  had  not  been  taken  away  by 
friends."— W'es^co«.  For  why  should  either 
enemies  or  friends  remove  the  winding-sheets 
from  the  body,  or  roll  together  the  cloth  upon 
the  head  and  lay  it  in  a  phtce  by  itself? 

8.  Then  went  in  also  that  other  dis- 
ciple. Therefore  should  be  inserted,  as  in  the 
Revised  Version  ;  for  the  act  of  John  in  enter- 
ing the  tomb,  was  due  to  the  example  and 
influence  of  Peter.  Dr.  Bushnell  made  tliis 
verse  the  text  of  a  beautiful  sermon  on  the 
power  of  unconscious  influence.  Peter  said 
nothing  to  John,  probably  thought  nothing 
about  influencing  him  ;  yet  by  his  example  he 
led  John  to  enter  the  tomb,  and  observe  with 
himself  all  the  particulars  which,  sixty  3'ears 
afterwards,  that  disciple  would  have  occasion 
to  relate.  Which  came  first  to  the  sepul- 
chre :  and  might,  therefore,  have  entered  it 
first,  thougli,  for  some  reason,  he  failed  to  do 
so — a  failure  which  may  possibly  have  been 
tliought  of  by  him  as  a  neglect  of  duty,  or  of 
privilege,  especially  when  remembered  in 
connection  with  Peter's  action,  to  the  influ- 
ence of  which  he  had  i)r()|ierly  ^Melded.  And 
he  saw  and  believed.  Believed,  that  is  to 
say,  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  as  an  ac- 
compiished  foct;  for  this  interpretation  is 
required  by  the  next  verse.  Were  it  not  for 
the  context,  and  especially  for  that  verse,  it 
would  be  natural,  with  many  of  the  best  in- 
terpreters, to  give  the  word  believed  a 
broader  and  more  spiritual  sense,  making  it 
signify,  after  the  manner  of  John,  a  special 
accession  to  his  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Son  of 
God,  and  the  Saviour  of  mankind.  But, 
while  this  maj'  be  involved  as  a  consequence 
in  the  believing  here  spoken  of,  it  is  not 
directly  specified.  Probaby  Peter  did  not  j-et 
believe,  or  at  least,  express  his  belief 

9.  For  as  yet  they  knew  not  the  scrip- 
ture, that  he  must  rise  again  from  the 
dead.  John  was  convinced  by  what  he  satr, 
that  his  Master  had  risen  from  the  dead,  and 
not     by    the     testimony    of   Scripture;     for 


Ch.  XX.] 


JOHN. 


397 


10  Then  the  disciples  went  away  again  unto  their 
own  home. 

11  "But  Mary  stood  without  at  the  sepulchre  weep- 
ing: and  as  she  wept,  she  stooped  <lowu,aitd  luoked  into 
the  sepulchre, 

12  And  seeth  two  angels  in  white  sitting,  the  one  at 
the  head,  and  the  other  at  the  feet,  where  the  body  of 
Jesus  had  lain. 


10  So  the  disciples  went  away  again   unto   their  own 
home. 

11  But   Mary  was    standing   without    at    the   tomb 
weeping:    so,  as    she  wept,  she  st<joped  and  looked 

12  into  the  toiub;    and  slie    beholdeth    two   angel.s  in 
white  sitting,  one  at  the  head,  and  one  at  the  feet, 


a  Mark  16 :  5. 


neither  he,  nor  the  rest  of  the  disciples,  yet 
knew  that  he  must  rise  again.  By  the  scrip- 
ture, is  probiibly  meant  some  one  passage  of 
the  Old  Testament,  which  was  understood  by 
the  Evangelist  to  predict  the  resurrection  of 
the  Messiah.  That  passage  may  nave  been 
the  one  to  which  Peter  appealed  on  the  Day 
of  Pentecost  (Acts  2: 27),  that  is,  the  tenth  verse 
of  the  sixteenth  Psalm:  "For  thou  wilt  not 
leave  my  soul  to  Sheol;  neither  wilt  thou 
suffer  thine  Holy  One  to  see  corruption." 
(Rev.  Ver. )  The  event  was  needed  to  inter- 
pret the  prophecy.  And  to  this  day  the  same 
is  true.  The  predictions  of  Scripture  are  best 
understood  in  the  light  of  their  accomplish- 
ment. 

10.  Then  the  disciples,  (or,  the  disciples 
therefore),  went  away  again.  They  had 
seen  all  that  remained  in  the  tomb,  with  care- 
ful observation.  There  was  no  more  to  be 
learned  respecting  their  Lord  in  that  place; 
therefore,  they  returned  to  their  home  in  the 
city;  but  whether  in  silence,  each  one  medi- 
tating on  what  he  had  seen,  or  in  subdued 
conversation,  John  expressing  his  belief  in 
the  Lord's  resurrection,  and  Peter  frankly 
avowing  the  doubts  which  still  lingered  in  his 
mind,  we  know  not.  They  had  seen  no  vision 
of  angels.  John  needed  none,  and  before  the 
evening  hour  Peter  was  to  see  the  Saviour 
himself.  Surely  their  hearts  burned  within 
them  by  the  way,  whether  thoy  walked  in 
silence  or  uttered  freely  their  rising  hopes. 

11-18.  Jesus  Appears  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalene. 

11.  But  Mary  stood  without  at  the 
sepulchre,  weeping.  Was  standing,  is  a 
better  rendering  of  the  verb  than  stood.  It 
appears  that  Peter  and  John  did  not  tarry 
long  in  the  tomb.  A  careful  survey  of  the 
place  cannot  have  occupied  many  minutes, 
and  when  that  was  accomplished  they  would 
naturally  hasten  away  to  their  friends  with  a 
report  of  what  they  had  seen.  Meanwhile, 
Mary  Magdalene  was  returning  to  the  tomb, 
having  been  unable  to  keep  pace  with   them 


as  they  ran  thither  out  of  the  city.  Whether 
she  arrived  before  their  examination  was 
finished,  is  uncertain;  but  when  the  Evan- 
gelist brings  her  into  his  narrative  again  she 
had  already  come  back  to  the  sepulche,  and 
was  standing  without  the  same,  weeping. 
Probably  the  two  disciples  had  gone  into  the 
city  without  meeting  her;  certainly  John  had 
not  told  her  of  his  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of  their  divine  Friend,  for  her  impressions 
were  still  the  same  as  when  she  said  to  them 
(ver.2)j  "they  have  taken  away  the  Lord  out 
of  the  sepulchre,  and  we  know  not  where  they 
have  laid  him."  And  as  she  wept,  she 
stooped  down,  and  looked  into  the 
sepulchre.  On  the  expression  stooped 
down  and  looked,  see  comment  on  ver.  5; 
for  the  verb  in  this  place  is  the  same  as 
the  participle   in   that,  (here,  napiKvtpev,  there, 

7rapaicv>jja<;). 

12.  And  seeth  two  angels  in  white  sit- 
ting. Better:  And  she  beholdeth,  etc.  For 
while  the  Greek  verb  here  used  (Seiapei,  com- 
pare note  on  ver.  6)  does  not  commonlj' 
signify  a  purely  mental  act,  independent  of 
the  senses,  it  does  appear  to  denote  a  seeing 
in  which  the  mind  of  the  person  who  sees 
is  consciously  and  purposely  engaged — a 
directed  and  appreciative  vision;  it  is,  there- 
fore, represented  in  the  Revised  Vr^rsion  by 
the  English  word,  beholdeth.  In  tvhite — i.  e., 
garments.  Luke  saj's,  that  "two  men  stood 
by  them" — i.  e.,  by  the  women  who  first  en- 
tered thetomb — "in  shining  garments"  (2*  =  *), 
and,  doubtless,  those  "two  men"  were  identi- 
cal with  the  "two  angels,"  whom  now,  at  a 
later  morning  hour,  Mary  Magdalene  behold- 
eth; for  the  form  in  which  angels  were  mani- 
fested aforetime  was  generally  human.  The 
one  at  the  head,  and  the  other  at  the 
feet,  where  the  body  of  Jesus  had  lain. 
More  literally,  one  at  the  head,  and  one  at 
the  feet.  Not  onlj'  are  the  sitting  posture  and 
the  shining  raiment  mentioned,  but  the  exact 
position  of  the  two  angels  is  also  carefully 
stated,  after  the  manner  of  this  Evangelist. 


398 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XX. 


13  And  they  say  unto  her,  Woman,  why  weepest 
thou?  She  saith  unto  them,  Because  they  liave  taken 
away  my  Lord,  and  1  know  not  where  they  have  laid 
biui. 

14  "And  when  she  had  thus  said,  she  turned  herself 
back,  and  saw  Jesus  standing,  and  'knew  not  that  it 
was  Jesus. 

15  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Woman,  why  weepest  thou? 
whom  seekest  thou?  She,  supposing  him  to  be  the  gar- 
dener, saith  unto  him.  Sir,  if  thou  have  borne  hiiu 
hence,  tell  me  where  thou  hast  laid  him,  and  I  will  take 
him  away. 


13  where  the  body  of  Jesus  had  lain.  And  they  say 
unto  her.  Woman,  why  weepest  thou?  She  saith 
unto  them.  Because  they  have  taken  away  my 
Lord,  and    I    know  not  where  they  have  laid  him. 

14  When  she  had  thus  said,  slie  turned  herself  back, 
and  beholdeth  Jesus  standing,  and    knew  not  that 

15  it  was  Jesus.  Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Woman,  why 
weepest  thou?  whom  seekest  thou?  She,  supposing 
him  to  be  the  gardener,  saith  unto  him.  Sir,  if  thou 
hast  borne  him  hence,  tell  me  where  thou  hast  laid 


a  Matt.  'J8:  9;  Mark  16:  » h  Luke  21 :  15,  31;  ch.  21 :  4. 


13.  The  angels  first  speak:  Woman,  why 
weepest  thou  ?  Their  question  being  asked, 
as  so  many  others  arc,  not  for  the  sake  of 
gaining  information,  but  to  secure  a  definite 
avowal  of  her  sorrow,  that  would  render  their 
testimony  more  natural  and  less  abrupt  to 
her  mind.  For  it  is  scarcely  supposable  they 
were  in  any  doubt  as  to  the  occasion  of  her 
weeping.  Her  answer  shows  that  she  had  no 
idea  of  what  had  really  taken  place.  Her 
thoughts  were  not  yet  moving  in  the  direction 
of  truth.  Because  they  have  taken  away 
my  Lord,  and  I  knoAV  not  where  they 
have  laid  him.  It  is  almost  the  same  lan- 
guage which  she  used  to  Peter  and  John, 
though  slightly  more  personal.  And,  bearing 
in  mind  the  ardor  of  her  love  to  the  Saviour, 
who  had  delivered  her  from  an  awful  and 
mysterious  aflHiction  (Luke  8: 2),  we  can  imagine 
this  language  to  be  an  expression  of  the  one 
thought  that  filled  her  heart.  Had  a  hundred 
persons  questioned  her,  this  would  have  been 
her  answer  to  them  all.  But  her  sorrow  was 
soon  to  vanish  away  before  the  light  of  a 
great  joj'.  If  not  the  firsts  then  certainlj'  the 
second  appearance  of  the  risen  Christ  was  to 
this  grateful  woman.  Peter  and  John  might 
wait  a  little  longer,  but  Jesus  showed  himself 
very  soon  after  his  resurrection  to  this  de- 
voted and  weeping  follower. 

14.  And  when  she  had  thus  said,  she 
turned  herself  back.  The  more  important 
early  manuscripts  and  versions  have  no  and 
at  the  beginning  of  this  verse,  but  read 
simply:  When  she  had  thus  said,  etc.  The 
mind  of  Mary  was  so  completely'  filled  with 
the  idea  of  her  Lord's  removal  to  some  un- 
known place  by  human  hands,  that  the  spec- 
tacle of  two  angels  clothed  in  white  seems 
not  to  have  riveted  her  attention  for  any 
length  of  time.  Yet,  it  is  possible  that  the 
angels  perceived  the  presence  of  Jesus  with- 
out, and  paused,  before  giving  their  response, 


to  see  what  he  would  do.  It  is  possible,  too, 
that  Mary  heard  the  st)und  of  his  footsteps, 
and  rose  from  her  stooping  posture  to  see  who 
might  be  drawing  near.  Nay,  it  is  possible 
that  the  very  question  which  the  angels  asked, 
led  Mary  to  believe  them  ignorant  of  the  one 
thing  which  she  longed  to  kn;;w.  At  any 
rate,  without  waiting  for  their  response,  she 
turned  herself  back,  and  saw  (or,  behold- 
eth) Jesus  standing.  Here  again  the  verb 
is  beholdeth,  not  seeth.  It  was  not  a  merely 
casual  glance  that  she  gave  her  risen  Lord, 
but  an  observant  look  which  sought  to  read 
the  countenance  of  the  man  who  stood  near, 
with  a  view  to  learning  whether  he  was  likely 
to  know  and  make  known  the  place  to  which 
the  body  of  Jesus  had  been  remo\'ed.  And 
knew  not  that  it  was  Jesus.  Her  look 
must  have  been  earnest  enough  to  recognize 
the  Lord,  if  her  soul  had  not  been  intent  on 
learning  one  thing — the  place  to  which  his 
body  had  been  carried,  or,  it  her  eyes  had  not 
been  suffused  with  tears.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
suppose  that  he  appeared  to  her  in  "'another 
form"  (Marki6:i2j,  or,  that  her  "eyes  were 
holden  that  she  should  not  know  him."  (Luke 
24:16.)  And,  as  the  causes  of  non-recognition 
were  entirely  natural,  so  likewise  were  the 
means  emploj'ed  to  secure  recognition.  As 
none  but  the  clearest  evidence  was  fitted  to 
dispel  the  prepossession  which  controlled  her 
mind,  that  evidence  was  graciously  furnished 
for  her  sake,  and  for  ours;  and  we  can  trace 
its  operation  without  difficult}'. 

15.  Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Woman,  why 
Aveepest  thou  ?  whom  seekest  thou?  The 
first  qiiestion  is  identical  with  that  which  the 
angels  asked  (ver.  1.3),  and  maj'  be  explained  in 
the  same  way.  For  Mary  was  still  weeping, 
and  even  human  sympathy  would  fain  do 
something  to  remove  the  cause  of  that  weep- 
ing. But  to  do  this  in  a  natural  manner,  the 
cause  must  first  be  revealed  by  the  sufferer. 


Ch.  XX.] 


JOHN. 


399 


16  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Mary.    She  turned  herself,  1 16  hiiu,  and  I  will  take  him  awav.    .lesus  saith  unto 
and  saith  unto  hiiu,  Kabboni;  which  is  to  say,  Master.         hei-,  Mary.    She  turned  liei stir," and  saith  unto  hiiu 

I       in    Hebrew,  Kabboni;    whicli    is    to     say,  'Master. 

1  Oi-,  Teacher. 


But  the  second  question  implies  a  certain  de- 
gree of  knowledge  as  to  that  cause.     Yet,  no 
more  knowledge  tium  a  man  belonging  to  tlie 
place  and  aware  of  the  removal  of  the  body 
from   the  tomb,   might   well   be  supposed  to 
have  in  the  circumstances.     A  weeping  wo- 
man, a  ravished  tomb,  and   a   friendly   man 
seeing  the  former  and  cognizant  of  the  latter, 
are  all  that  is  needed  to  account  for  this  ques- 
tion.    Jesus,  indeed,  knew  all;  but  his  ques- 
tion   need    not    have    suggested    to  Mary   a 
knowledge  on  his  part  bej'ond  that  which  a 
gardener  could  have  possessed.     But  if  there 
was  nothing  in  the  tenor  of  this  question  to 
reveal  the  person  of  Jesus  to  Mary,  is  it  not 
at  least  \ery  surprising  that  she  did  not  recog- 
nize  his   voice   as  soon   as    heard?     For,    in 
every  human  voice  there  is  some  peculiarity 
of  tone    or  timbre,  of  accent  or  cadence;  and 
it  is  commonly  imagined  that  the  utterance  of 
Jesus  was  singularly  perfect,  and,  therefore, 
easily  distinguishable  from  that  of  other  men. 
True ;  but  there  is  no  testimony  in  support  of 
the  latter  hypothesis;  and,  unless  it  be  cor- 
rect, we  are  not  justified  in  affirming  that  the 
asking  of  the  two  brief  questions  recorded  bj' 
John,  if  done  in  a  kindly,  unemphatic  man- 
ner, would  bring  out  perceptibly  any  peculiar 
quality  of  his  voice.     Besides,  we  are  to  bear 
in  mind  that  Mary  did  not  suppose  it  possible 
for  Jesus  to  be  standing  before  her.     She  was 
searching   for  his  lifeless   body,  and   was   as 
utterly  unprepared  as  any  human  being  could 
have  been  to  recognize  his  presence  among 
the  living.     So  she  did  not  catch  the  tone  of 
his  voice;    but,  supposing   him    to   be   the 
gardener,   saith   unto   him,    Sir,  if  thou 
have   borne   him   hence,   tell    me   Avhere 
thou  hast   laid  him,  and  I  will  take  him 
away.     The  pronoun  thou  is    slightly  em- 
phatic, probably  in  contrast  with  her  prevail- 
ing thought  that  he  had  been  removed  by 
enemies.     The   questions  of  the   man   whom 
she    conjectures    to    be    the    gardener  were 
friendly,  and   it  occurs  to  her  that,  for  sotne 
cause,  he  may  have  taken   away  the  body, 
and,  if  so,  that  he  might  consent  to  give  it  up 
to  the  disciples.     "Mary  makes  no  answer  to 
the  inquiry.     Her  heart  is  so  full  of  the  Per- 


son to  whom  it  referred  that  she  assumes  he 
is  known  to  her  questioner.  .  .  .  The  trait  is 
one  of  those  direct  reflections  of  life  which 
mark  St.  John's  Gospel." — Wcstcott. 

16.  Jesus   saith   unto   her,   Mary.     We 
assume  that  Jesus  threw  into  his  utterance  of 
this  name  all  that  had  been  most  characteristic 
of  his  tone  and  accent  in  tbepast:    that  he 
pronounced   it   with   a   holy   tenderness   and 
authi)rity  possible  to  no  other  person.     West- 
C(jtt   supposes   that  there   must  have  been  a 
short  pause  between  her  word-  to  him  and  his 
utterance  of  her  name,  during  which  she  had 
resumed  her  former  position,  and  become  lost 
in  grief.     But  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  sup- 
pose that  she  had  become  "lost  in  her  grief 
again."     It  was  enough  that  she  had  failed  to 
recognize  him.     Seeing  this,  Jesus  resorted  to 
the  most  natural  and  effective  way  of  enabling 
her  to  do  this.     He  put  into  the  clear  and  deep 
utterance  of  her  name  all  that  was  peculiar 
and  inimitable  in  his  manner  of  speaking  it. 
And  the  effect  was  instantaneous;  the  recog- 
nition perfect.     Never  was  there  a  more  sud- 
den and  complete  revulsion  of  feeling.     Her 
sorrow  was   changed  into  joy:    she  turned 
herself,  and  saith  unto  him  {in  the  Hebrew 
tongar.)"Rah\)on\\  which  is  to  say,  Mas- 
ter.    Farrar  suggests  that,  while  making  her 
appeal  to  the  supposed  gardener  (ver.  15),  "she 
had  turned  her  head  aside,  perhaps,  that  she 
might   hide   her  streaming  tears,"   and   that 
now,  recognizing  Jesus  by  his  voice,  she  turns 
her  face  towards  him  again,  every  line  of  sad- 
ness passing,  as   it  were,  into   light  and  joy. 
The  word  Rabboni,  is  explained  by  John 
himself  as  equivalent  to  Master  or  Teacher. 
Doubtless,  it  was    uttered    with    the    utmost 
reverence  and  love;  but  expositors  call  atten- 
tion to  the  circumstance  that  this  appears  to 
have  been  the  last  time  he  was  addressed  or 
denominated    by   any  one  of   his    disciples, 
Master.     From  the  hour  of  his  resurrection 
onward,  the  divine  element  of  his  being  filled 
a  larger  place  in  their  souls,  and  they  spoke 
of  him  as  their  Lord,  or  the  Son  of  God,  etc. 
In  the  Hebrew  tongue,   is  accepted    by   the 
highest  critical   authorities,  as  a  part  of  the 
original  text,  and  the  fact  that  Mary  made 


400 


JOHN. 


[Cn.  XX. 


17  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Touch  me  not;  for  I  am  not 
yet  ascended  to  my  Father:  but  go  to  »my  brethren, 
and  say  unto  them,  'I  ascend  unto  my  Father,  and 
your  Father;  and  to  "my  God,  and  your  God. 


17  Jesus  saith  to  her,  'Touch  me  not;  for  I  am 
not  yet  ascended  unto  the  Father:  but  go  unto 
my  brethren,  and  say  to  them,  I  ascend  unto 
my    Father,    and    your    Father,  and    my  God  and 


aPs.  22  :  22;  Miitt.  28:  10;  Boju.  8:  29;  Heb.  2  :  11 6  ch.  16:  iS c  Eph.  1 :  17. 1  Or,  Takenothold  on  me. 


use  of  the  Aramaic  language  at  such  a  mo- 
ment, is,  perhaps,  an  evidence  that  it  was 
commonly  employed  by  Jesus  and  his  disci- 
ples in  their  familiar  intercourse.  (Comp. 
Mark  10:  51— Kev.  Ver.-;  Acts  22:  2;  26:  14.) 
17.  Touch  me  not :  for  I  am  not  yet 
ascended  unto  my  (Rev.  Ver.  the)  Father: 
but  go  to  my  brethren,  and  say  unto 
them,  I  ascend  unto  my  Father,  and 
your  Father,  and  to  (Rev.  Ver.  omits  to) 
my  God  and  your  God.  It  is  not  an  easy 
matter  to  ascertain  the  precise  thought  of  this 
verse.  Grimm  explains  it  thus:  "Do  not 
seek  to  learn  by  touching  me,  whether  I  am 
even  now  clothed  with  a  body :  there  is  no 
need  of  this  search,  for  I  have  not  yet  ascended 
to  the  Father" — and  am,  therefore,  still  in  the 
flesh — "but  go  unto  my  brethren,"  etc.  This 
view  of  the  passage  is  drawn  out  very  satis- 
factorilj'  by  Dr.  Hackett,  thus :  "It  should  be 
observed  that  this  imperative  present  form 
{ixij  Slittov)  implies  an  incipient  act  either  actu- 
ally begun,  or  one  on  the  point  of  being  done, 
as  indicated  by  some  look  or  gesture.  Mury, 
it  may  well  be  supposed,  wa«  in  the  same  per- 
plexed state  of  mind  on  the  appearance  of 
Christ  to  her,  which  was  evinced  in  so  many 
different  ways  by  the  other  disciples  after  the 
resurrection.  She  had  already,  it  is  true,  ex- 
claimed, in  the  ecstacy  of  her  joy,  '  Rabboni' ; 
but  she  may  not  yet  have  been  certain  as  to 
the  precise  form  or  nature  of  the  body  in 
which  she  beheld  her  Lord  ...  In  this  state 
of  uncertainty  she  extends  her  hand  to  assure 
herself  of  the  truth.  She  would  procure  for 
herself,  by  the  criterion  of  the  sense  of  touch, 
the  conviction  which  the  eye  is  unable  to  give 
her.  The  Saviour  knows  her  thoughts  and 
arrests  the  act.  The  act  is  unnecessary:  his 
words  are  a  sufficient  proof  of  what  she  would 
know.  He  had  'not  yet  ascended  to  the 
Father,'  as  she  half  believed,  and  conse- 
quently has  not  the  spiritual  body  which  she 
supposed  he  might  possihlj'  have  .  .  .  Her 
case  was  like  that  of  Thomas,  and  yet  unlike 
his;  she  wished,  like  him,  to  touch  the  object 
of  her  vision,  but,  unlike  him,  was  not 
prompted  by  unbelief." 


A  second  interpretation  is  defended  by 
Weiss,  Westcott,  and  others.  Dr.  Weiss  as- 
sumes that  "Mary  indicated  her  wish  tore- 
new,  by  hand-pressure  or  something  of  the 
kind,  the  close,  human  fellowship  which  she 
had  formerly  had  with  him.  But  Jesus  de- 
clined this  renewal  of  intimate  human  fel- 
lowship on  the  ground  that,  though  he  had 
not  yet  ascended  to  the  Father,  he  was  about 
to  do  this.  Hence,  his  appearing  to  his  dis- 
ciples could  not  have  for  its  object  a  resump- 
tion of  his  earlier  human  intercourse  with  his 
own."  Weiss  refers  the/or  to  the  whole  sen- 
tence that  follows,  and  especially  to  the  mes- 
sage which  Mary  was  commanded  to  bear  to 
the  disciples,  "I  ascend  unto  mj'  Father  and 
3'our  Father,  and  my  God  and  your  God." 
In  this  case,  as  Westcott  remarks,  "the  im- 
minent, though  not  resdized,  ascension  of  the 
Lord  would  be  regarded  as  forbidding  the  old 
forms  of  earthly  intercourse."  But  this  wri- 
ter refers  the  for  to  the  tirst  clause  only — "I 
am  not  yet  ascended  to  the  Father" — and  says 
that  in  "this  case  the  ascension  would  be  pre- 
sented as  the  beginning  and  condition  of  a 
new  union  .  .  .  Mary  substituted  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  humanity  of  Christ  for  a  knowl- 
edge of  his  whole  person  .  .  .  She  thought 
that  she  could  now  enjoy  his  restored  Pres- 
ence as  she  then  apprehended  it.  She  assumed 
that  the  return  to  the  old  life  exhausted  the 
extent  of  her  Master's  victory  over  death. 
Therefore,  in  his  reply,  Christ  said  :  'Do  not 
cling  to  me,  as  if  in  that  which  falls  under  the 
senses  you  can  know  me  as  I  am  ;  for  there  is 
yet  something  beyond  the  outward  restoration 
to  earth  which  must  be  realized,  before  that 
fellowship  towards  which  you  reach  can  be 
established  as  abiding."  Dr.  Schaff  says, 
that  "the  meaning  has  been  made  more  diffi- 
cult by  a  want  of  sufficient  attention  to  the 
force  of  the  words,  '  Touch  me  not' ;  for  these 
words  do  not  express  the  touch  of  a  moment 
only,  but  a  touch  that  continues  for  a  time. 
They  are  equivalent  to  'Keep  not  thy  touch 
upon  me,'  'Handle  me  not,'  'Cling  not  to 
me.'  Mary  would  have  held  her  Lord  fast 
with  the  grasp  of  earthly  affection  and  love. 


Ch.  XX.] 


JOHN. 


401 


18  "Mary  Magdalene  eaiue  and  told  the  disciples 
that  she  had  seen  the  Lord,  and  that  he  had  spoken 
these  things  unto  her. 

19  'Then  the  same  day  at  evening,  being  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  when  the  doors  were  shut  where  the  dis- 
ciples were  assembled  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  came  .Jesus 
and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  saith  unto  them.  Peace  be 
uuto  you. 


18  your  God.  Mary  Magdalene  cometh  and  telleth 
the  disciples,  I  have  seen  the  Lord;  and  how  that 
he  had  saiil  these  things  unto  her. 

19  When  iherclore  it  was  evening,  on  that  day,  the 
first  dny  of  tlie  week,  and  when  the  doors  were  shut 
where  the  di.sciples  were,  for  fear  of  the  Jews, 
Jesus  came  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  saith  unto 


a  Malt.  28: 10:  Luke  24  :  10 b  Mark  16: 14;  Luke  24:  36;  1  Cor.  15:  5. 


She  needed  to  be  taught  that  the  season  for 
such  bodily  touching  of  the  Word  of  Life  was 
past.  But,  as  it  passed,  the  disciples  were  not 
to  be  left  desolate :  the  season  for  another 
touching — deeper,  because  spiritual — began. 
Jesus  would  return  to  his  Father,  and  would 
send  foi'th  his  Spirit  to  dwell  with  his  dis- 
ciples." 

It  has  been  considered  an  objection  to  the 
former  view,  maintained  by  Grimm,  Hackett, 
and  others,  that  Christ's  treatment  of  Mary 
differed  from  his  treatment  of  Thomas; 
but  to  this  it  is  replied,  that  Mary  only 
doubted  ;  she  did  not  disbelieve  with  Thomas, 
and  therefore  she  did  not  need  the  same  evi- 
dence as  Thomas.  It  has  also  been  objected 
to  the  latter  view,  maintained  by  Weiss, 
Westcott,  Plumptre,  SchafF,  and  others,  that 
Christ's  treatment  of  Mary  Magdalene  dif- 
fered from  his  treatment  of  the  other  women 
(Matt.  28:9),  who  Were  permitted  to  hold  his  feet; 
but  to  this  it  maybe  answered,  that  Mary's 
longing  for  the  visible  Christ,  as  a  human 
Friend  and  Teacher,  may  have  been  stronger 
than  that  of  the  other  women,  leading  the 
Saviour  to  deny  her  a  privilege  that  was  safely 
granted  to  them.  Besides,  their  act  was  evi- 
dently one  of  lowly  homage  or  worship,  while 
hers  would  have  been  distinctly  one  of  pure, 
but  human  affection.  From  all  that  is  said  of 
Mary  in  the  Gospels,  we  think  it  more  likely 
that  she  erred  by  undue  devotion  to  the  hu- 
man personality  of  Jesus  than  by  doubting 
the  reality  of  his  resurrection  body.  For  this 
reason,  we  regard  the  latter  interpretation  as 
more  likely  to  be  correct  than  the  former. 
It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  Jesus  here  speaks 
of  the  disciples,  for  the  first  time,  as  his  breth- 
ren. Before  his  death  he  had  called  them 
friends  as  well  as  servants,  but  now  he  directs 
Mary  to  go  to  his  "brethren."  And  in  what 
sense  they  were  his  brethren,  appears  by  the 
message  which  she  is  to  deliver :  I  ascend  unto 
my  Father  and  your  Father.,  and  my  God  and 
your  God.  Thus,  he  pronounces  them  chil- 
dren of  his  Father  and  his  God.     Yet,  he  dis- 


2A 


tinguishes  his  Sonship  to  God  from  theirs. 
He  does  not  say,  "  I  am  ascending,  or  about  to 
a.scend,  unto  our  Father  and  our  God,"  thus, 
putting  them  in  precisely  the  same  relation 
to  the  Father  with  himself,  but  he  says,  "My 
Father  and  your  Father,  and  my  God  and 
your  God,"  leaving  room  for  a  great  differ- 
ence between  the  nature  and  origin  of  his  own 
Sonship  and  theirs.  (Comp.  1  John  3:1; 
Gal.  3:  26,  27.) 

18.  In  obedience  to  the  Saviour's  word, 
Mary  Magdalene  came  and  told  the  dis- 
ciples. A  more  exact  rendering  is  found  in 
the  Kevised  Version,  cometh  and  telleth,  and, 
a  yet  more  literal  translation  in  the  Bible 
Union  Revision,  Mary  the  Magdalene  come.'i, 
bringing  word  to  the  disciples.  Davidson 
gives  the  same  translation.  And  Westcott 
deems  it  .significant  that  the  telling  is  ex- 
pressed by  a  participle,  and  thus  made  to  be  a 
mere  accompainment  of  the  coming — the  prin- 
cipal point  in  the  writer's  mind  being  the 
promptness  of  Mary  in  leaving  Jesus  to  go  to 
his  disciples.  That  she  had  seen  the 
Lord.  According  to  the  critical  editors,  this 
should  be,  /  have  seen  the  Lord — the  Evan- 
gelist recalling  and  repeating  the  very  words 
in  which  Mary  testified  to  her  having  .seen  the 
Lord,  but  passing  to  the  indirect  style  of  nar- 
ration, when  referring  to  what  had  already 
been  recorded  in  the  precise  language  of 
Jesus.  And  (that)  he  had  spoken  these 
things  unto  her:  namely,  the  things  re- 
corded in  ver.  17.     Touch  me  not,  etc. 

19-23.  Jesus'  First  Appearance  to 
His  Disciples  Assembled  in  a  Closed 
Room. 

19.  In  conformity  with  his  plan,  John 
omits  some  of  Christ's  appearances  to  his  fol- 
lowers. After  appearing  twice  in  the  early 
morning — once  to  a  group  of  women,  who 
had  been  among  his  faithful  disciples,  and 
once  to  Mary  Magdalene,  who  had  been  for- 
given much  and  therefore  loved  much — he 
also  appeared  twice  during  the  daj',  once  to 
Simon  Peter,  as  we  learn  from  Luke  24;  34, 


402 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XX. 


and  1  Cor.  15:  5,  and  again  to  two  disciples  on 
their  way  to  Emmaus — one  of  them,  Cleopas. 
(Luke 24: 13-35.)  It  would  be  natural  to  conjec- 
ture that  John  omitted  to  describe  Christ's 
manifestation  of  himself  to  Peter,  and  later, 
to  the  two  disciples,  because  these  three  were 
present  at  both  the  interviews  of  Jesus  with 
his  disciples,  described  by  him  in  the  present 
chapter;  but  there  is  really  no  good  reason 
why  we  should  trouble  ourselves  about  the 
Evangelist's  grounds  for  deciding  to  omit  this 
and  insert  that.  The  result  of  his  work  as  a 
whole  is  such  as  to  justify  the  conclusion  that 
he  was  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  accord- 
ing to  the  promise  of  his  Master,  and  that  his 
record  is  perfect  for  the  ends  which  it  was  in- 
tended to  serve.  Then  the  same  day  at 
evening,  etc. — or,  as  in  Kevised  Version, 
When  therefore  it  was  evening,  on  that  day, 
the  first  of  the  week.  By  that  day,  John 
points  with  emphasis  to  the  day  of  Christ's 
resurrection.  It  was  in  almost  every  respect 
the  day  of  days  to  those  who  had  truly 
believed  in  Jesus.  The  narrative  of  Luke 
(24:29»q.)  renders  it  probable  that  this  appear- 
ance of  Jesus  was  late  in  the  evening,  though 
not  necessarily  very  late.  It  was  "toward 
evening,  and  the  day"  was  "far  spent"  when 
the  two  disciples  sat  down  with  Jesus  to  a. re- 
past in  Emmaus,  a  village  about  eight  miles 
from  Jerusalem.  He  was  made  known  to 
them  in  the  breaking  of  bread,  and  they  rose 
up  that  very  hour  and  returned  to  Jerusalein. 
When  the  doors  were  shut  where  the  dis- 
diples  were  assembled,  for  fear  of  the 
Jews.  The  word  assembled,  is  wanting  to 
the  oldest  manuscripts— (e.  g.,  X  A  B  D  L  a  «, 
and  others).  The  doors  were  therefore  shut 
for  fear  of  the  Jews.  This  circumstance  is 
mentioned,  not  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
the  peril  to  which  the  disciples  were  exposed, 
but  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  reader  a 
view  of  the  supernatural  manner  in  which 
Jesus  revealed  himself  to  his  own.  A  certain 
"air  of  my.stery  clothed  his  person  and  move- 
ment? after  his  resurrection.  No  man  knew 
whence  he  came,  or  whither  he  went,  or  how 
he  lived.  He  seemed  to  hover  over  the  path- 
way of  his  disciples,  visible  or  invisible  at 
will.  His  body  was  real,  yet  not  subject  to 
the  common  laws  of  matter.  With  '  new 
properties,  po^vers,  and  attributes'  {EUicott),\t 
was  a  perfect  servant  of  the  spirit.     Nowhere 


do  the  Evangelists  hint  at  any  reason  for  this 
change  in  the  bearing  of  Christ  after  his 
resurrection,  but  with  nice  agreement  do  all 
their  accounts  reveal  the  change  itself."  (See 
the  author's  work  on  the  "  Miracles  of  Christ 
as  Attested  by  the  Evangelists,"  p.  46).  In 
other  words,  the  Evangelists  simply  state  the 
facts — facts  which  they  knew,  and  of  which 
they,  and  they  alone,  in  some  cases,  could 
bear  witness;  and  it  seems  to  us  that  their  wit- 
ness is  singularly  harmonious  as  to  the  extra- 
ordinary' character  of  the  Lord's  resurrection 
life.  Came  Jesus  and  stood  in  the  midst. 
No  one  could  tell  how  he  came.  "All  that 
is  set  before  us  is,  that  he  was  not  bound  by 
the  present  conditions  of  material  existence 
which  we  observe." — {Westcott.)  The  com- 
ment of  AVeiss  is  more  positive,  though  look- 
ing in  the  same  direction  :  "  It  is  not  indeed 
said  that  he  came  through  the  closed  doors,  as 
many  Fathers,  Calvin,  and  others,  interpret 
it  (comp.  agiiinst  this  Hcngstenberg),  but  the 
representation  is  not  therefore  obscure." — (De 
Wette.)  The  current  representation,  that  the 
bodily  nature  of  Jesus  was  only  on  the  way 
to  glorification,  and,  therefore,  although  yet 
material,  was  not  bound  to  the  limitations  of 
space  {Meyer) — for  which  view  reference  is 
made  to  his  walking  on  the  sea  (Godet,  and 
perhaps  Hcngstenberg  and  Luthardt) — cannot 
be  carried  through.  From  his  resurrection, 
onward,  Christ  was  in  his  glorified  body,  as 
this  coming,  in  spite  of  closed  doors,  shows 
(comp.  Luke  24:  31,  36);  and  if  he  appears  to 
the  disciples  in  a  bodj'  apprehensible  bj'  the 
senses  (ver.  20),  this  takes  place  for  the  very 
purpose  of  making  them  certain  of  his  having 
a  bodily  nature,  and  so  of  bis  resurrection." 
For  the  opposite  view  of  Christ's  resurrection 
bodj',  see  an  able  article  in  the  Bib.  Sac.  for 
May,  1845,  by  Dr.  Edward  Kobinson.  That 
his  body  was  real,  material,  having  flesh  and 
bones,  as  before  the  crucifixion,  we  are  fully 
assured;  but  whether  such  a  bodj'  may  not 
be  at  the  same  time  a  perfect  organ  of  the 
spirit,  and  subject  to  its  will  to  a  degree 
almost  incredible  before  it  is  experienced,  is 
a  question  not  yet  answered  to  the  satisfaction 
of  all.  "We  are  inclined  to  think  it  may  be 
such  an  organ,  and  to  believe,  though  not 
with  absolute  confidence,  that  the  body  of 
Jesus  was  changed  when  he  first  left  the 
I  tomb,  that  it  was  raised  incorruptible  (icor.  is: 


Ch.  XX] 


JOHN. 


403 


20  And  when  he  had  so  said,  he  shewed  unto  them 
Ws  hands  and  his  side.  "Then  were  the  disciples  glad, 
when  they  saw  tlie  Lord. 

21  Then  said  Jesus  to  theui  again,  Peace  be  unto  you : 
'  (W  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  1  you. 


20  them,  Peace  he  unto  you.  And  when  he  bad  said 
this,  lie  sliewed  unto  them  his  hands  and  liis  side. 
The    disciples    therefore    were    glad,    when     they 

21  saw  the  Lord.  Jesus  lln^retbre  said  to  them  again, 
Peace  be  unto  you:    as  the  Father  hath  sent  me, 


och.  16:  22.... 6  Matt.  28:  18:  ch.  17:  18,  19;  2  Tim.  2 :  2;  Heb.  3:1. 


20,44,52.)  Peace  be  unto  you.  This  was, 
and  is,  a  customary  form  of  salutation.  But 
it  was  peculiarly  appropriate  at  tliis  moment. 
All  that  the  words  literally  mean  was  in 
them  as  they  fell  from  the  lips  of  Jesus. 
Fearful  of  being  misled  in  so  vital  a  matter, 
astonished  at  what  they  had  heard  from  the 
women  and  from  Peter,  perplexed  by  the  re- 
port which  the  two  disciples  were  bringing 
from  Einmaus,  anxious,  agitated,  and  all  but 
four  of  them  still  despondent,  distrustful — into 
what  breathless  silence  and  awe  must  they 
have  been  hushed,  as  they  saw  One  like  unto 
the  Son  of  man  taking  his  place  visibly  and 
serenely  in  the  midst  of  tiiem!  And  with 
what  feelings  of  wonder  and  joy  must  they 
have  heard  the  voice  of  him  who  spake  as 
never  man  spake,  in  the  salutation,  Peace  be 
unto  you  !  It  was  a  word  never  to  be  forgot- 
ten, full  of  love  and  authority;  a  word  from 
heaven  as  trulj'  as  from  earth.  Now,  if  never 
before,  they  must  have  felt  that  the  God-man 
was  with  them. 

20.  And  when  he  had  so  said  (or,  said 
this)  he  shewed  unto  them  his  hands  and 
his  side.  To  convince  them  beyond  the 
reach  of  doubt  that  he  was  with  them  alive, 
in  the  very  body  that  had  been  nailed  to  the 
cross  and  pierced  with  the  soldier's  spear. 
"Literall3',"  says  "Westcott,  "according  to 
the  most  ancient  text,  both  his  hands  and  his 
side";  but  this  is  surely  too  strong  a  state- 
ment. The  only  authority  for  both,  cited  by 
Tischendorf,  is  that  of  A  B  and  the  Peshito, 
while  the  other  uncials  and  early  versions 
omit  this  word.  The  difference  is  unimport- 
ant, except  as  a  matter  of  emphasis;  but  that 
is  no  reason  why  the  preponderance  of  tes- 
timony should  be  overruled  in  favor  of  a 
pleasing  text.  Then,  (or,  ^Ae7'e/b?'e)  were  the 
disciples  glad  when  they  saw  the  Lord. 
This  testimony  agrees  with  that  of  Luke, 
though  the  latter  states  that,  at  first,  "they  be- 
lieved not  for  joy."  (24:  4i.)  He  mentions  a 
number  of  particulars  not  referred  to  by 
John.  Thus,  at  the  Saviour's  salutation, 
"they  were  terrified  and  affrighted,  and  sup- 


posed that  they  had  seen  a  spirit"  (ver. 37) — 
this  being  true  of  some  in  the  room.  "And 
he  said  unto  them,  Why  are  ye  troubled? 
And  why  do  thoughts  ari.se  in  your  hearts? 
Behold  my  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I 
myself:  handle  me  and  see ;  for  a  spirit  hath 
not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have.  And 
when  he  had  thus  spoken,  he  shewed  them 
his  hands  and  his  feet.  And  while  they  yet 
believed  not  for  joy,  and  wondered,  he  said 
unto  them.  Have  ye  here  any  meat?  And 
they  gave  him  a  piece  of  a  broiled  fish,  and  of 
an  honeycomb.  And  he  took  it,  and  did  eat 
before  them."  Without  enumerating  all 
these  items  of  evidence,  so  instructive  to 
Luke,  John  relates  a  part  of  them,  sufficient 
for  his  purpose,  and  then  passes  on  to  acts 
and  words  of  profound  spiritual  significance, 
which  hehad  treasured  upin  his  heart  through 
a  long  life  of  devotion  to  his  Lord. 

21.  There  is  no  indication  of  haste  or  con- 
fusion in  the  action  of  Jesus.  Every  move- 
ment and  word  is  orderly,  deliberate,  re-assur- 
ing, full  of  wisdom  and  love  and  authority. 
Not  until  he  has  convinced  them  of  his  iden- 
tity in  body  and  spirit  with  their  crucified 
Master,  not  until  their  wonder  and  joy  have 
settled  down  into  a  fixed  and  rational  belief, 
founded  on  indubitable  proof,  that  he  is  their 
Lord— victorious  over  death  and  the  grave- 
did  he  renew  his  benediction  and  pronounce 
them  his  missionaries  and  representatives  to 
mankind.  Then  said  Jesus  to  them 
again,  Peace  be  unto  you  :  as  my  Father 
hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you.  There- 
fore, instead  of  then ;  for  the  disciples  were 
now  prepared  for  that  which  the  Evangelist 
relates.  By  the  solemn  renewal  of  the  bene- 
diction with  which  he  first  greeted  them  he 
prepares  them  for  the  words  and  act  which 
were  to  follow.  The  words:  As  my  Father 
hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you,  were  not 
absolutely  new,  though  they  may  have  been 
unexpected.  For,  in  his  high  priestly  prayer 
(17:18)  Jesus  had  used  the  same  language  with 
respect  to  his  disciples,  in  addressing  the 
Father,  which   he  now   uses  in  speaking  to 


404 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XX. 


22  And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them, 
and  saith  unto  theiu,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost: 

23  "  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted 
unto  theiu ;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are 
retained. 


22  even  so  send  I  you.  And  when  he  had  said  this, 
he  breathed  on   them,   and    saith    unto  them,   Ke- 

23  ceive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit :  whose  soever  sins  ye 
forgive,  they  are  I'oregiven  unto  them ;  whose  soever 
sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained. 


I  Matt.  16 :  19  ;  18  :  18. 


them.  Only  one  word,  translated  seiit,  is 
found  in  both  clauses  of  17:  18,  while  two 
words  of  nearly  the  same  meaning  are  used 
in  this  verse  {ivoariWm^  Trinirm).  Schaff  argues 
tliat  there  is  a  slight  distinction  between  the 
two  words,  the  former  word  directing  atten- 
tion to  the  sending  as  a  commission,  the  latter 
emphasising  it  as  a  mission.  "  When  the  firstis 
used,  our  thoughts  turn  to  a  special  embassy, 
and  special  instructions  which  the  ambassador 
receives;  the  second  brings  into  view  rather 
the  authority  of  the  sender  and  the  obedience 
of  the  sent."  But  the  use  of  the  same  word 
in  both  clauses  in  17:  18,  renders  it  doubtful 
whether  any  distinction  is  intended  here. 
The  passages  differ  in  one  respect,  it  is  true; 
fjr  there  the  Saviour  declared  what  he  had 
dene  virtually,  rather  than  in  fact  and  form; 
while  here  the  sending  is  direct  and  complete 
in  form,  though  the  hour  of  action  for  the 
disciples  has  not  yet  fully  come.  And  how 
greatly  does  the  comparison,  even  so,  exalt 
their  mission !  How  distinctly  does  the 
clause,  even  so  I  send  you,  imply  the  di- 
vine authority  of  Jesus!  He  is  to  be  obeyed 
as  Head  over  all  to  the  church.  And  if  we 
follow  out  the  analogy  between  the  mission  of 
.Tesus  and  that  of  his  disciples,  to  its  utmost 
limit,  both  will  be  seen  to  involve  self-denial 
and  suffering,  as  well  as  triumph  and  glorj%  a 
cross  here,  and  a  crown  hereafter. 

22.  But  to  be  the  sent  of  the  Anointed  One, 
they  would  need  themselves  to  be  anointed ;  to 
be  heralds  of  spiritual  truth,  they  would  need 
illumination  by  the  Spirit  of  truth.  "We  are 
therefore  prepared  for  the  further  record  of 
John.  And  when  he  had  said  this,  he 
breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto  them. 
Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  act  of 
breathing  upon  them  was  intended  to  sym- 
bolize the  fact  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was,  or 
was  to  be,  imparted  to  them  by  him,  just  as 
thegivingof  life  to  man  at  first  was  represented 
by  the  act  of  God,  when  he  "breathed  into 
his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life."  (Gen.  2: 7.)  The 
symbolism  of  the  act,  teaches  also  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  abides  in  Jesus,  as  truly  as  in  the 
Father.      But,   whether    the    words,    "Holy 


Spirit,"  should  have  the  article  or  not  in  this  • 
passage,  is  doubtful.  There  is  no  article  in 
the  original  text;  but,  Greek  words  that  have 
become,  in  effect,  proper  names,  may  take  or 
omit  the  article  on  grounds  very  difficult  to 
discover.  (See  Winer  ^  19,  Thayer's  Trans., 
p.  119-122;  Buttmann,  §  124,  b.  p.  89.)  If, 
however,  a  distinction  is  made  between  Holy 
Spirit,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  former  must 
naturally  signify  the  influence,  and  the  latter, 
the  person  of  the  Spirit.  But  we  consider  it 
unsafe  to  rely  upon  such  a  distinction. 

23.  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they 
are  remitted  unto  them;  and  whose- 
soever sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained. 
The  words  and,  and  sins,  in  the  last  clause, 
do  not  represent  anj'  thing  expressed  in  the 
original  text,  and  may  be  omitted  without 
detriment  to  the  sense.  The  Revised  Version 
reads :  Whos^esoever  sins  ye  forgive,  they  are 
forgiven  unto  them ;  whosesoever  sins  ye  re- 
tain, they  are  retained — supplying  unneces- 
sarily, the  words  "sins,"  in  the  second  clause. 
These  words  of  Jesus  seem  to  be  very  plain, 
but  thej'  offer  a  serious  diflScult^'  to  a  consci- 
entious student  of  the  Bible.  Taken  in  their 
most  literal  sense,  they  signify  that  those  ad- 
dressed would  be  so  enlightened  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  to  read  the  hearts  of  men,  and,  acting 
as  judges  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  to  forgive 
or  condemn  with  infallible  wisdom  those  who 
might  appear  before  them— their  decision  be- 
ing accepted  in  every  case  by  the  Lord  as  his 
own  decision.  But  there  is  very  little  in  the 
history  of  the  Apostolic  Church  which  favors 
the  view  that  any,  even  though  apostles,  were 
accustomed  to  exercise  this  judicial  function 
over  individuals.  Only  in  a  few  instances, 
and  those  of  an  extraordinary  character,  like 
that  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  or  that  of 
Simon  Magus,  was  such  a  decision  pronounced. 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Epistles  of 
Paul  furnish  clear  evidence  that  unworthy 
members  were  sometimes  received  into  the 
churches,  notwithstanding  the  presence  of 
apostles  or  the  possession  of  extraordinary 
spiritual  gifts  by  other  members.  But,  may 
not  the  Saviour  refer  to  a  fallible  action  of  his 


Ch.  XX.] 


JOHN. 


405 


disciples,  that  would  represent  to  a  degree  the 
divine  judgment  as  to  individuals?  Thus, 
Alford  writes:  "The  words,  closely  con- 
sidered, amount  to  this:  that  with  the  gift 
and  real  participation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  comes 
the  conviction,  and,  therefore,  the  knowl- 
edge of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  judgment; 
— and  this  knowledge  becomes  more  perfect, 
the  more  men  are  tilled  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Since  this  is  so,  they  who  are  pre-eminently 
filled  with  his  presence,  are  pre-eminently 
gifted  with  the  discernment  of  sin,  and  re- 
pentance in  otliers,  and  hence,  by  the  Lord's 
appointment,  authorized  to  pronounce  pardon 
of  sin  and  the  contrarj'.  The  apostles  had 
this  in  an  especial  manner,  and  by  the  full  in- 
dwelling of  the  Spirit  were  enabled  to  discern 
the  hearts  of  men,  and  to  give  sentence  on 
that  discernment.  (See  Acts  5:  1-11;  8:  21; 
13:  9.;  And  this  gift  belongs  to  the  church 
in  all  ages  ...  in  proportion  as  any  disciple 
shall  have  been  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
wisdom."  Against  this  interpretation  the  fol- 
lowing considerations  may  be  raised  :  1.  That 
the  practice  of  giving  a  positive  decision  as 
to  the  spiritual  state  of  individuals,  was  infre- 
quent with  the  apostles,  and  was  apparently 
due  to  some  extraordinary  illumination  and 
impulse,  like  that  which  led  to  the  working 
of  miracles.  2.  That  any  similar  practice, 
since  the  apostolic  age,  has  generally  been 
associated  with  acts  of  fanaticism  which  soon 
discredited  it  in  the  eyes  of  thoughtful  Chris- 
tians. 3.  That  even  the  Roman  Catholic 
priesthood  virtually  disclaims  a  knowledge  of 
human  hearts,  by  conditioning  the  validity  of 
its  remission  of  sins  on  the  sincerity  and  peni- 
tence of  the  person  forgiven.  Thus  under- 
stood, the  Roman  priesthood  really  does  little 
more  than  solemnly  declare  the  conditions  of 
pardon,  and  the  certainty  of  judgment  if  those 
conditions  are  not  fulfilled.  4.  That  this  in- 
terpretation represents  Jesus  as  linking  his 
commission  to  the  disciples,  and  his  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  not  with  their  principal  work — 
the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  and  the  per- 
suading of  men  to  receive  it — but  with  a  very 
subordinate,  and — may  we  not  say? — unim- 
portant part  of  their  work,  that  of  pronounc- 
ing judgment  on  characters  formed.  Thus 
interpreted,  the  drift  of  this  promise  is  entirely 
different  from  that  of  the  prediction  in  16:  7-15, 
and  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  best  life  of 


the  church  for  eighteen  centuries.  For  these 
reasons  we  do  not  believe  that  Jesus  referred, 
in  these  words,  to  any  formal  judicial  action  of 
his  disciples.  To  what  then  did  he  refer?  To 
the  work  of  his  disciples  as  qualified  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  declare  without  error  the  con- 
ditions of  forgiveness  or  condemnation  under 
the  reign  of  Christ.  Men  were  to  learn  from 
their  lips  the  heaven-appointed  terms  of  life 
and  death.  "What our  Lord  here  commits  to 
his  disciples,  to  his  church,  is  the  right  au- 
thoritatively to  declare,  in  his  name,  that  there 
is  forgiveness  for  man's  sins,  and  on  what  con- 
ditions he  will  be  forgiven." — Schaff.  The 
language  of  Watkins  really  amounts  to  the 
same  thing.  "Sent,  as  he  was  sent,  they  are 
not  sent  to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the 
world  through  him  might  be  saved;  but  in 
their  work,  as  in  his,  men  are  condemned  be- 
cause the  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and 
men  love  darkness  rather  than  light.  The 
ultimate  principles  upon  which  this  power 
rests,  are  those  stated  above — the  being  sent  by 
Christ,  and  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
God  has  promised  forgiveness  wherever  there 
is  repentance ;  he  has  not  promised  repentance 
wherever  there  is  sin.  It  results  from  every 
declaration  of  forgiveness  made  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  through  Jesus  Christ,  that  the 
hearts  which,  in  penitence  ac(;ept  it,  receive 
remission  of  their  sins,  and  that  the  hardness 
of  the  hearts  which  willfully  reject  it  is  by 
their  rejection  increased,  and  the  very  words 
by  which  their  sins  would  be  remitted  become 
the  words  by  which  they  are  retained." 

Many  commentators  suppose  that  "the  dis- 
ciples,'" referred  to  in  this  paragraph,  were 
not  the  apostles,  but  the  followers  of  Jesus 
then  in  Jerusalem,  or  at  least,  a  considerable 
portion  of  them.  This  seems  to  them  a  natu- 
ral inference  from  the  fact  that  two  who  were 
not  of  the  Eleven,  were  certainly  admitted, 
namely,  Cleopas  and  his  companion,  to  whom 
the  Lord  had  made  himself  known  in 
Emmaus.  But  it  is  more  probable  that  John 
had  in  mind  the  apostles,  even  though  a  few 
others  were  present;  for  he  speaks  of  them  as 
"the  disciples,"  and  such  were  the  apostles  in 
a  pre-eminent  sense  and  by  the  prevailing  use 
of  the  expression  in  the  Gospels;  moreover, 
they,  beyond  all  others,  might  deem  it  neces- 
sary to  meet  with  closed  doors  for  fear  of  the 
Jews;    and,    lastly,   the   words  addressed  to 


406 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XX. 


24  But  Thomas,  one  of  the  twelve,  "called  Didymus, 
was  not  with  them  when  Jesus  came. 

2i  The  other  disciples  therefore  said  unto  him,  We 
have  seen  the  Lord.  But  he  said  unto  them,  Except  I 
shall  see  in  his  hands  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  put 
my  finger  into  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  thrust  my 
baud  into  his  side,  I  will  not  believe. 

•i6  And  alter  eight  days  again  his  disciples  were 
within,  and  Thomas  with  them:  then  came  Jesus,  the 
doors  being  shut,  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  said, 
Peace  be  unto  you. 


25      But   Thomas,  one  of  the  twelve,  called   iDidy- 

25  mus,  was  not  with  them  when  Jesus  came.  The 
other  disciples  therefore  said  unto  him,  We  have 
seen  the  Lord.  But  he  said  unto  them,  Except  I 
rhall  see  in  his  bands  the  print  of  the  nails,  and 
put  my  finger  into  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  put 
my  band  into  bis  side,  I  will  not  believe. 

26  And  after  eight  days  again  his  disciples  were 
within,  and  Thomas  with  them.  Jesus  cometh,  the 
doors  being  shut,  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  said. 


I  oh.  11 :  IG. 1  That  is,  Twine. 


them  in  ver.  21-23,  suggest  the  idea  of  in- 
spired teachers,  rather  than  of  ordinary  Chris- 
tians. Perhaps  we  ought  to  add,  that  the 
only  one  whose  absence  is  mentioned  was  an 
apostle. 

24-29.  Second  Appearance  of  Jesus 
TO  THE  Assembled  Disciples. 

24.  But  Thomas,  one  of  the  twelve, 
called  Didymus,  was  not  with  them  when 
Jesus  came.  No  reason  is  given  for  the  ab- 
sence of  Thomas,  but  it  is  natural  to  conjec- 
ture that  he  had  given  up  the  cause  of  his  for- 
mer Master  as  lost  beyond  recovery.  Keen- 
sighted,  but  despondent,  he  had  looked  upon 
Jesus  as  coming  to  certain  death  when  he  re- 
turned from  Perea  to  Bethany  and  Jerusalem. 
(11:16.)  His  worst  fears  had  been  more  than 
realized  ;  his  Master  had  suffered  the  horrors 
of  crucifixion ;  and  now  it  was  vain  to  think 
of  his  return  to  life.  His  tomb  might  be 
vacant,  as  some  had  reported,  but  this  was  no 
solid  ground  for  hope.  Moreover,  it  would  be 
useless  to  meet  and  commune  together;  the 
otherthrow  of  their  Christ  had  been  as  utter 
as  death  could  make  it;  let  every  one  mourn 
apart,  and  go  down  in  despair  to  the  grave. 

25.  The  other  disciples  therefore  said 
unto  him,  We  have  seen  the  Lord.  His 
absence  led  them  to  bear  this  testimony,  and 
doubtless  they  accompanied  the  brief  state- 
ment recorded  by  John  with  such  ))articulars 
as  confirmed  their  own  faith.  But  the  testi- 
mony of  others  did  not  move  him.  His  de- 
spondency or  despair  was  too  deep.  They 
might  believe,  but  he  could  not.  Except  I 
shall  see  in  his  hands  the  print  of  the 
nails,  and  put  my  finger  into  the  print  of 
the  nails,  and  thrust  my  hand  into  his 
side,  I  Avill  not  believe.  It  is  difficult, 
when  reading  these  statements,  to  suppress  a 
feeling  that  the  unbelief  of  Thomas  was  willful 
as  well  as  unreasonable.  For  he  refuses  to 
accept  the  testimony  of  his  fellow-disciples 
who  had  known  the  Lord  as  long  and  as  inti- 


niateiy  as  he  himself— even,  though  a  number 
of  them  had  seen  the  Saviour  at  the  same  time 
and  place,  and  though  he  had  shown  them  his 
hands  and  his  side,  and,  calling  for  food,  had 
eaten  in  their  presence.  He  refuses  also  to  re- 
ceive the  evidence  of  his  own  sight  and  hear- 
ing, unless  it  is  confirmed  by  that  of  touch. 
And  this  evidence  of  touch,  he  insists,  shall 
be  applied,  not  only  to  the  body  of  the  sup- 
posed Christ,  to  verify  its  reality,  but  also  to 
the  scars  or  wounds  of  that  body — to  identify 
it  as  the  body  of  his  crucified  Master.  Proof 
shall  be  raised  to  the  highest  possible  grade 
of  personal  verification  before  he  will  surren- 
der his  unbelief.  Indeed,  he  demands  a  kind 
and  degree  of  evidence  which  could  never  be 
given  to  any  but  the  little  group  of  disciples 
that  had  followed  Christ  through  most  of  his 
public  ministry.  That  his  demand  was  un- 
reasonable, must  be  at  once  perceived  ;  that  it 
was  willful,  we  do  not  aflSrm  :  charity  requires 
us  to  withdraw  the  epithet.  For,  at  heart,  he 
had  been  a  true  disciple,  and  the  Saviour  con- 
descended to  offer  him  everj'  "jot  and  tittle" 
of  the  evidence  which  he  required.  More- 
over, though  it  would  be  wrong  to  excuse  his 
unbelief,  it  is  right  to  adore  the  wisdom  and 
love  of  Christ,  in  overcoming  that  unbelief. 
Nay,  it  is  well  that  there  was  a  Thomas  among 
the  Eleven — a  man  who  could  not,  or  would 
not,  believe  without  incontestable  evidence 
that  Jesus  Christ  had  risen  from  the  dead. 
If  all  the  disciples  had  possessed  the  spiritual 
insight  of  John,  our  evidence  that  Jesus  rose 
on  the  third  daj',  would  probably  have  been 
less  satisfactory  than  it  now  is.  Hence,  for 
our  sakes,  it  was  needful  that  such  a  man  as 
Thomas  should  be  one  of  the  apostles. 

26.  And  after  eight  days  again  his  dis- 
ciples were  Avithin,  and  Thomas  with 
them.  A  full  week  has  elapsed,  or  eight 
days,  reckoning  from  Sunday  to  Sunday,  in- 
clusively, as  the  Greek  expression  naturally 
signifies.     Why  they  were  again  assembled 


Ch.  XX.] 


JOHN. 


407 


27  Then  saith  he  to  Thomas,  Reach  hither  thy  finger,  I  27  Peace  be  unto  you.  Then  saith  he  to  Thomas, 
anil  behold  uiy  hands;  and  "  rtniuh  hither  thy  hand.  Reach  hither  tliy  finger,  and  see  my  hands;  and 
and  thrust  it  into  my  side ;  and  be  not,  faithless,  but  |  reach /u7/(e;- thy  hand,  ami  put  it  into  my  side:  and 
believing.                                                                                    i  28  be  not  faithless,  but  believing.     Thomas  answered 

28  And  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  hiiu,   My 
Lord  and  my  God.  | 

a  I  JobD  1 :  1. 


on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  we  need  not  in- 
quire. Probably  they  had  met  every  day 
during  the  week,  but  Jesus  had  not  appeared 
to  them  in  tliat  interval.  Whether  Thomas 
was  with  them  for  the  first  time,  or  not,  we 
have  no  means  of  deciding,  and  what  had 
been  his  state  of  mind  through  the  week,  is 
equally  unknown.  But  that  he  was  with 
them  on  this  occasion  is,  perhaps,  an  evidence 
tliat  his  heart  was  not  at  rest  in  unbelief.  He 
may  have  longed  for  proof  that  would  restore 
his  confidence  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  A 
week's  reflection  may  have  taught  him  the 
misery  of  skepticism  as  contrasted  with  the 
joy  of  faith,  especially  if  he  met  occasionally 
an}'  of  his  former  companions  in  the  service 
of  Christ.  But  his  unbelief  was  not  dispelled, 
whatever  moral  preparation  may  have  been 
going  on  in  his  heart  with  a  view  to  its  re- 
moval. It  was  best  that  he  should  be  left  to 
himself  in  darkness  for  a  full  week,  that  on 
the  first  day  of  the  second  week  light  might 
break  into  his  understanding,  and  adoring 
love  fill  his  soul.  Thus  at  least  would  the 
first  day  of  the  week  become  still  more  em- 
phatically the  Lord's  Day.  It  has  been  con- 
sidered strange  that  the  disciples  did  not 
leave  Jerusalem  as  soon  as  possible  after 
Christ's  message  to  them,  appointing  a  meet- 
ing in  Galilee.    (Matt.  28:7,  10;  Mark  16:  7.)      But   the 

unbelief  of  Thomas  may  have  detained  the 
rest  for  a  time,  especially  if  his  character  was 
one  that  commanded  their  respect,  and  if  they 
perceived  his  unbelief  to  be  honest,  though 
obstinate.  They  would  linger  a  while  in  the 
hope  of  taking  him  with  them  to  meet  the 
Lord  in  Galilee.  Then  came  Jesus  (or, 
Jesus  came),  the  doors  being  shut,  etc.  See 
exposition  of  the  same  language  in  ver.  19, 
above.  The  mysterious  manner  of  his  ap- 
pearing was  the  same  as  before.  His  saluta- 
tion, which  was  at  the  same  time  a  benedic- 
tion, was  addressed,  as  in  the  previous  meet- 
ing, to  all  who  were  present — therefore  to 
Thomas  with  the  rest.  That  voice!  Did  he 
recognize.it?  That  countenance!  Did  he  see 
in  it  the  lines  of  him  whom  he  last  saw  on  the 


cross?  But  there  was  more  to  come.  The 
mysterious  Twelfth  in  that  gronp  was  fixing 
his  eye  upon  the  disciple  who  had  demanded 
the  evidence  of  his  own  senses  before  he 
would  believe. 

27.  Then  saith  he  to  Thomas,  Reach 
hither  thy  finger,  and  behold  my  hands. 
Better:  and  sec  my  hands.  The  word  see  is 
often  used  to  denote  knowledge  gained  by 
hearing  or  touch.  And  be  not  faithless, 
but  believing.  Literally,  Become  not  un- 
believing, but  believing.  "  By  the  expression  : 
Become  not,  Jesus  makes  him  see  that  he  is  at 
a  critical  point,  where  two  ways  diverge,  the 
one  of  settled  unbelief,  the  other  of  com- 
plete faith."  —  Godet.  "Through  his  doubt  in 
the  resurrection  of  Christ,  which  had  actually 
taken  place,  Thomas  was  in  danger  of  becom- 
ing unbelieving  (in  Jesus),  while  he  could 
only  become,  in  the  full  sense,  believing,  by 
the  certainty  of  his  resurrection." — Weiss. 

28.  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto 
him.  My  Lord  and  my  God.  Jesus  offered  to 
Thomas  the  very  evidence  which  he  had  de- 
manded, and  the  language  in  which  he  did  this 
was  in  itself  a  proof  of  his  knowledge,  super- 
naturally  acquired,  of  the  words  which  Thomas 
had  used.  The  form  and  countenance  of 
Jesus,  the  sound  of  his  voice,  and  the  evidence 
of  divine  knowledge  afforded  by  his  words,  ap- 
pear to  have  swept  awa.y,  as  \>y  a  flood,  the 
unbelief  of  Thomas.  He  did  not  probably 
need  the  evidence  of  touch.  He  could  not 
withhold  the  exclamation  of  adoring  confi- 
dence that  leaped  from  his  heart  to  his  lips. 
"In  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  Thomas  rightly 
sees  a  pledge  of  his  so  oft^ n  promised — going 
to  the  Father  and  partaking  of  the  divine 
glory.  The  word  is  certainly  one  of  deep  and 
powerful  emotion,  and  no  dogmatic  formu- 
lated confession  of  faith ;  but  not  on  that 
account  an  exaggeration,  since  Jesus  accepts 
it"  (ver. 29.)  "The  last  becomes,  for  a  mo- 
ment the  first,  and  the  faith  of  the  apostles,  as 
Thomas  professed  it,  reaches  finally  the  whole 
height  of  the  divine  truth  expressed  in  the 
prologue." — Godet.    Every  attempt  to  weaken 


408 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XX. 


29  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thomas,  because  thou  hast 
seen  me,  thou  hast  believed :  "  blessed  are  they  that 
have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed. 


29  and  said  unto  him.  My  Lord  and  my  God.  Jesus 
said  unto  him,  Because  thou  hast  seen  me,  ^thou 
hast  believed :  blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen, 
aud  yet  have  believed. 


1  2  Cor.  5:  7;  1  Pet.  1 : 


-1  Or,  hast  thou  believed  t 


the  force  of  this  testimony  to  the  Deity  of 
Christ  is  broken  before  the  perfect  clearness 
of  the  words  used  by  Thomas,  the  explicit 
record  that  thej'  were  addressed  to  Jesus  him- 
self, and  the  definite  recognition  of  their 
truthfulness  by  him.  Beyond  question,  John 
was  a  witness  of  what  he  relates;  and  who- 
ever rejects  this  part  of  his  Gospel  as  un- 
worthy of  confidence,  must,  if  consistent, 
reject  it  all. 

29.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thomas, 
because  thou  hast  seen  me,  thou  hast 
believed.  The  word  Thomas  does  not  be- 
long to  the  text.  All  the  important  uncials 
(including  X  A  B  C  D),  and  early  versions, 
want  it.  Again,  the  clause  translated,  thou 
hast  believed,  may  be  either  declarative  or 
interrogative.  Meyer,  Weiss,  Godet,  Wat- 
kins,  prefer  the  interrogative  form,  on  the 
ground  that  it  gives  more  vividness  to  the 
gentle  reproof  involved  in  the  Saviour's  re- 
sponse. Westcotf^aj's  it  is  half  exclamatory 
and  half  interrogative.  But  the  meaning  is 
substantially  the  same,  whether  it  be  consid- 
ered a  declaration,  an  exclamation,  or  an  in- 
terrogation. In  either  case,  Jesus  recognizes 
the  fiict  that  Thomas  has  passed  from  unbelief 
into  a  state  of  belief;  for  he  uses  the  perfect 
tense,  denoting  an  action  that,  begun  in  the 
past,  is  continued  in  the  present.  His  belief 
is  also  genuine  and  satisfactory  in  character. 
In  either  case,  too,  the  proximate  cause  of 
his  faith  was  sight.  Thomas  had  not  been 
convinced  by  the  testimony  of  his  fellow-dis- 
ciples, or  by  their  testimony  with  the  predic- 
tions of  Jesus,  or  by  both  these  with  the  holy 
life  and  teaching  of  his  Lord,  but  only  by 
sensible  evidence  superaaded  to  all  he  knew 
of  Christ,  and  all  he  had  heard  from  the 
apostles.  Yet,  the  words  of  Jesus,  "because 
thou  hast  seen  me,"  have  been  considered 
favorable  to  the  view,  that  Thomas  believed 
without  putting  his  finger  to  the  wounds  of 
Christ,  that  he  was  convinced  as  soon  as  he 
saw  the  Saviour  standing  visibly  before  him. 
We  do  not  think  there  is  much  force  in  this 
argument,  but  nevertheless  admit  the  want  of 


proof  that  Thomas  did  actually  touch  the 
wounds  of  Jesus.  Blessed  are  they  that 
have   not   seen,  and  yet    have    believed. 

This  language  is  not  exclusive.  Jesus  does 
not  intend  to  say  that  Thomas  is  not  accepted 
by  him  and  will  not  be  permitted  to  rejoice 
henceforth  in  his  love.  His  language  is  rather 
comparative,  and  signifies  that  those  who  be- 
lieve on  suitable  testimony,  but  without  sensi- 
ble evidence,  are  specially  approved  by  the 
Lord.  On  such  evidence  men  are  to  re- 
ceive the  gospel,  or  perish  ;  on  such  evidence 
the  business  of  life  must  be  conducted,  or 
society  will  dissolve.  By  its  treatment  of 
such  evidence  moral  character  is  proved.  The 
evidence  ofsense  is  often  compulsory.  Bad  men 
accept  it  as  readily  as  good  men.  It  is,  there- 
fore, in  most  instances,  no  proper  test  of  char- 
acter. But  the  evidence  of  testimony,  of  the 
inner  moral  consistency  of  religious  truth, 
and  of  its  fitness  to  meet  and  satisfy  the  needs 
of  spiritual  life,  is  not  compulsory.  The  ac- 
ceptance of  it  is  a  free  act  of  the  soul  in  view 
of  what  that  soul  approves.  These  words  of 
Jesus,  though  addressed  to  Thomas,  and  occa- 
sioned by  his  conduct,  will  never  lose  their 
interest  to  Christians,  till  their  Lord  returns, 
"without  sin  unto  salvation."  They  teach 
that  the  first  disciples  of  Christ,  who  were 
witnesses  of  his  resurrection-life,  have  no  pre- 
eminence on  that  account.  We  who  believe 
on  their  testimony  the  facts  pertaining  to 
Christ,  which  they  believed  on  the  evidence 
of  sense,  may  have  as  true  and  acceptable  a 
faith  as  was  theirs.  Nay,  in  so  far  as  they 
were  disposed  to  insist  upon  a  verification  of 
facts  by  their  own  senses  before  they  would 
believe,  was  their  faith  inferior  in  spiritual 
power  to  that  of  Christians  who  are  satisfied 
with  such  evidence  as  apostolic  testimony  and 
the  nature  of  the  gospel  message  afibrd.  For 
all  the  ends  of  religious  life,  our  knowledge 
of  the  gospel  is  even  better  than  theirs  ;  our 
knowledge  of  Christ  is  even  better  suited  to 
moral  training  than  theirs.  For  this  reason, 
it  was  expedient  that  he  should  go  away,  pres- 
ently, and  be  seen  no  more.     (is-.  7,  jo.) 


Ch.  XX.] 


JOHN. 


409. 


30  "And  many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in  the  pres- 
ence of  his  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this 
book : 

31  '  But  these  are  written,  that  ye  iuit;ht  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  (jod  ;  '^aud  that  believing 
ye  might  have  life  through  his  name. 


30  Many  other  signs  therefore  did  Jesus  in  the 
presence  of  the  disciples,  which   are   not  written  iu 

31  this  book:  but  tliese  are  written,  that  ye  way  be- 
lieve  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  (iod;  and 
that  believing  ye  may  have  life  iu  his  name. 


a  cb.  ■il:25....6Lukel:  4....ccb.3:  15,  16;  &:  :!1:  1  Pet.  1:  8, 


30, 31.  Purpose  of  the  Writer  in 
Preparing    this    Gospel. 

30.  And  many  other  signs,  etc.  The 
Revised  Version  may  be  followed  with  ad- 
vantage in  reading  these  verses.  Many  other 
signs  therefore  did  Jesus  in  the  presence  of  the 
disciples,  which  are  not  Avritten  in  this 
book.  Tiiis  Gospel,  then,  according  to  the 
explicit  testimony  of  its  author,  contains  but 
a  selection  of  events  from  the  life  of  Christ. 
Not  all  his  miracles  are  described,  nor  is  there 
any  reason  to  suppose  that  any  attempt  is 
made  to  preserve  all  his  sayings  or  discourses. 
Moreover  from  the  general  resemblance  of 
this  Gospel  to  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  as  well 
as  from  a  study  of  their  characteristics,  we  in- 
fer that  they  also  are  selections.  The  mate- 
rials were  so  abundant  that  they  could  be 
used  in  no  other  way.  Is  it  not,  then,  surprising 
that  critics,  like  Baur  and  Strauss,  have  been 
wont  to  say,  whenever  a  miracle  or  word  of 
Jesus  is  recorded  by  only  one  or  two  of  the 
Evangelists,  that  the  others  knew  nothing  of 
it.?  Just  as  if  we  might  expect  to  find  all  they 
knew  about  the  ministry  of  Christ  written  out 
in  their  narratives!  "The  facts  which  John 
has  omitted  differ  from  those  which  he  has  put 
into  his  narrative,  not  only  in  quantity  [mnny), 
but  also  in  quality  (other).  Consequently,  if 
he  has  not  given  specimens  of  all  kinds  of 
miracles;  if,  for  instance,  he  has  related  no 
cures  of  lepers  or  of  demoniacs,  it  will  be  di- 
rectly against  his  intenticm  if  one  infers  from 
this  silence  that  he  wishes  to  deny  them." — 
Godet.  But  why  are  signs  spoken  of,  and  not 
discourses  also?  Did  John  undervalue  the 
evidential, convincing  power  of  his  Master's 
teaching  as  compared  with  his  wonderful 
works?  By  no  means.  He  has  given  a  large 
place  in  his  Gospel  to  the  words  of  Christ, 
and  has  recorded  more  than  one  saying  which 
represents  the  testimony  of  Jesus  as  sufficient 
of  itself  to  convince  the  honest  hearer.  But 
to  a  very  unusual  extent  the  signs  and  the 
teaching  of  Christ  are  linked  together  in  this 
Gospel — the  sign  being  the  text,  and  the  dis- 
course an  exposition  of  the  truth  expressed  by 


the  text.  Observe,  also,  that  these  "signs" 
were  wrought  in  the  presence  of  his  disci- 
ples ;  for  the  disciples  were  chosen  witnesses, 
not  merely  of  his  resurrection,  but  also  of  his 
whole  public  life,  from  its  beginning  with  the 
baptism  of  John  until  its  close,  when  he  was 
received  up  into  heaven,   (lo:  27;  a«s  i:  21,22.) 

31.  But  these  are  written  tliat  ye  might 
(or,  viay)  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God  ;  and  that  believing  ye 
might  (or,  may)  have  life  through  his 
name.  The  end  for  which  the  Evangelist 
wrote  this  Gospel  is  here  plainly  declared ; 
and  it  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  structure 
and  contents  of  the  book.  But  to  apprehend 
the  force  of  this  statement  we  need  to  bear  in 
mind  the  spiritual  condition  of  those  for  whom 
the  Gospel  was  primarily  written.  They  were 
undoubtedly  Christians,  and  particularly  the 
Christians  of  Asia  Minor.  Hence,  we  must 
suppose  them  to  have  been  believers  in  Jesus 
as  the  Christ,  and,  indeed,  as  the  Son  of  God. 
There  is  no  impropriety  in  supposing  this ;  for, 
according  to  John's  use  of  language,  there  are 
degrees  of  faith.  The  belief  of  a  true  dis- 
ciple is  sometimes  very  weak — so  weak  that 
when  a  higher  degree  is  attained,  the  lower  de- 
gree seems  to  have  been  a  sort  of  unbelief — 
tlie  increased  faith  being  alone  worthy  of  the 
name.  The  twilight  is  darkness  wi:en  com- 
pared with  noon-day.  If,  through  a  fuller 
knowledge  and  deeper  apprehension  of  Christ, 
a  believer  reaches  a  higher  degree  of  trust  in 
him,  he  may  be  spoken  of  as  now  believing, 
as  if  he  had  never  done  so  before.  But  it 
is  possible  that  many  Christians  of  Asia 
Minor  were  becoming  lukewarm  and  skep- 
tical in  regard  to  the  person  of  Christ.  It  is 
possible  that  Ebionites  or  Cerinthians  were 
undermining  the  fi\ith  of  some,  so  that  John 
had  special  occasion  to  write  this  Gospel  at  the 
time  when  it  was  written.  Yet  this  hypothesis 
is  by  no  means  necessary  to  account  for  the 
language  here  used.  The  explanation  given 
above  is  equally  pertinent,  and  the  perverse 
doctrine  of  Cerinthus  vnny  not  have  been  dis- 
seminated  when    this    Gospel    was    written. 


410 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XXI. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 


AFTER  these  things  Jesus  shewed  himself  again  to 
the  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias  ;  and  on  this 
wise  shewed  he  himself. 

2  There  were  together  Simon  Peter,  and  Thomas 
called  Didymiis,  and  "  Nathauael  of  C'ana  in  Galilee,  and 
*the  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  two  other  of  his  disciples. 

3  Siiuon  Peter  saith  unto  them,  I  go  a  fishing.  They 
say  unto  him,  We  also  go  with  thee.  They  went  forth, 
and  entered  into  a  ship  immediately;  and  that  night 
they  caught  nothing. 


1  After  these  things  Jesus  manifested  himself  again 
to  the  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias;  and  he  mani- 

2  tested  hinise/J'  on  this  wise.  There  were  together 
Simon  Peter,  and  Thomas  called  i  Didymus,  and 
Nathanael  of  C'ana  in  Galilee,  and  the  smis  of  Zeb- 

3  edee,  and  two  othe^  of  his  disciples.  Simon  Peter 
saith  unto  them,  I  go  a  tishing.  They  say  unto 
him.  We  also  come  with  thee.  They  went  forth,  and 
entered   into  the   boat;    and   that    night  they  took 


och.  1:  -to b  Matt.  4:  21. 1  That  is,  Twin. 


The  last  clause  refers  to  the  true  life  of  com- 
munion with  God,  begun  here,  and  perfected 
hereafter.  Probably  the  expression,  might 
(or,  may)  have  life  through  his  name,  de- 
notes a  higher  degree  of  union  with  God  and 
blessedness  in  him,  to  be  gained  by  a  better 
knowledge  of  Jesus  as  the  promised  Messiah 
and  the  Son  of  God. 


Ch.  21:  1-14.  Jesus  Appears  to  a 
Company  of  His  Disciples  by  the  Sea 
OF  Galilee. 

1.  Shewed  himself.  Perhaps  it  would  be 
better  to  translate — manifested  himself;  for 
the  Greek  word  [i^avipuiaiv)  seems  to  imply 
that  he  now  appeared,  by  an  act  of  his  own, 
out  of  an  invisible  state.  AVeiss  asserts,  pos- 
sibly with  too  nmch  confidence,  that  "he 
came  out  of  the  sphere  of  the  unseen,  in  which 
as  glorified  he  already  dwelt,  for  the  purpose 
of  making  himself  known  through  a  self 
assumed  visible  form."  This  is  a  less  prob- 
able view  than  one  which  he  rejects,  namely: 
that  the  glorified  body  of  Jesus  was  of  such  a 
nature  that  it  could  be  made  visible  by  him 
at  will.  Schaff  remarks  that  the  verb  here 
used  "expresses  more  than  that  Jesus  showed 
himself  after  the  resurrection.  In  these 
manifestations  he  really  revealed  himself  out 
of  the  entirely  new  state  which  had  begun  at 
the  resurrection."  Similarly  Godet:  "Hith- 
erto Jesus  had  manifested  his  glory ;  now  he 
manifests  himself;  for  his  person  has  entered 
for  the  future  into  the  sphere  of  the  invisible." 
The  expression,  after  these  things,  is  too 
indefinite  to  be  of  much  use  in  fixing  the  date 
of  this  manifestation.  But  the  direction 
-which  Jesus  gave  his  disciples  on  the  very  da^' 
of  his  resurrection  to  meet  him  in  Galilee, 
and  the  lack  of  any  notice  ()f  his  appearing  to 
them  at  Jerusalem  from  the  eighth  day  after 
his  resurrection  until  about  the  *,inie  of  his 
ascension,  lead  us  to  think  that  they  repaired 


to  Galilee  soon  after  the  manifestation  de- 
scribed in  the  last  chapter,  (ver.  ^6-29.)  He  is 
said  to  have  manifested  himself  to  his  disciples 
at  (or,  upon)  the  sea  of  Tiberias;  meaning 
that  there,  on  the  shore  of  that  sea,  was  the 
place  of  his  appearing;  not  that  his  disciples 
were  upon  the  sea,  although  this  was  the  case 
at  first  Only  John  calls  the  sea  of  Galilee 
the  "sea  of  Tiberias,"  from  the  name  of  a 
city  built  by  Herod  on  its  western  side-  The 
late  date  of  his  Gospel  accounts  for  this  desig- 
nation, especially  if  taken  with  the  persons  to 
whom  it  was  addressed,  and  the  writer's  long 
residence  in  Asia  Minor  before  it  was  written. 

2.  There  were  together  Simon  Peter, 
etc.  Here  only  in  this  Gospel  is  John  referred 
to  distinctly'  in  connection  with  his  brother 
James,  and  this  reference  is  very  unobtrusive 
— the  sons  of  Zebedee.  Such  a  reference  is 
strikingly  favorable  to  the  view  that  the  chap- 
ter was  written  by  John.  For  if  it  had  been 
added  by  any  other  writer,  surely  the  names 
of  James  and  John  vrould  have  been  inserted, 
and,  perhaps,  immediately  after  that  of  Peter, 
instead  of  being  placed  below  those  of 
Thomas  the  Twin,  and  of  Nathanael  of  Cana 
of  Galilee — unless,  indeed,  we  assume  that 
the  writer  copied  the  style  of  .John  in  the 
Gospel  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  the  readers 
— a  most  gratuitous  and  improbable  assump- 
tion. The  two  unnamed  disciples  did  not, 
probably,  belong  to  the  circle  of  the  apostles, 
and  for  that  reason  were  noticed  in  this  indefi- 
nite manner. 

3.  Simon  Peter  saith  unto  them,  etc.  It 
is  the  language  of  common  life.  This  group 
of  faithful  disciples  had  repaired  to  Galilee, 
perhaps  to  Capernaum,  where  Peter  seems  to 
have  had  a  home  and  business.  While,  there 
in  waiting  for  the  appearance  of  Jesus,  the 
impulse  to  resume  for  a  night  his  former 
occupation,  led  Peter  to  say,  I  go  a  fishing. 

.  And  the  others,   very   naturally,  propose  to 


Ch.  XXI.] 


JOHN. 


411 


4  But  when  the  morning  was  now  come,  Jesus  stood  on 
the  shore:  but  the  disciples"  knew  not  that  it  was  Jesus. 

5  Then  ''Jesus  saitli  unto  theiu,  Children,  have  ye 
any  meat?    They  answered  him,  No. 

6  And  he  said  unto  them,  "^Cast  the  net  on  the  right 
side  of  the  ship,  and  ye  shall  tiud.  They  cast  therefore, 
and  now  they  were  not  able  to  draw  it  for  the  multitude 
of  tishes. 


4  nothing.  Rut  wlien  day  was  now  breaking,  Jesus 
stood    on   tlie   beach:    howbeit   the  diseiplLS   knew 

."j  not  that  it  was  Jesus.  Jesus  therefore  sailh  unto 
them.     Children,    have    ye    aught    to  eat?     They 

C  answered  him.  No.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Cast 
the  net  on  the  right  side  of  the  boat,  and  ye  sliall 
lind.    They  cast  therefore,  and  now  they  were  uot 


acli.  20:  14 b  Luke  24  :  41 c  Luke  5    4,  6,  7. 


accompany  him.  The  act  needs  no  further 
explanation,  though  the  events  of  the  morn- 
ing may  be  symbolical  and  very  instructive. 
As  once  before,  the  disciples  caught  nothing 
during  the  night,  which  was  the  best  time  for 
fishing  in  that  clear,  inland  sea.  Whether 
such  want  of  success  was  very  unusual,  we 
cannot  tell ;  perhaps  not,  but  it  was  somewhat 
dispiriting  to  fishermen,  like  Peter,  James, 
and  John,  resuming  for  a  night  their  former 
life. 

4.  But  when  the  morning  was  now 
come,  Jesus  stood  on  the  shore.  Liter- 
ally :  But  when  the  morning  was  now  becom- 
ing, that  is,  dawning  or  breaking,  before  the 
light  was  perfect.  The  word  translated  shore, 
signifies  beach.  It  "denotes  a  smooth  shore,  as 
distinguished  from  one  precipitous  or  rocky."' 
— Haekett.  Compare  Matt.  13:2;  Acts  21 :  5  ; 
27:  39,  and  Herodotus  VII.  59,  188.  The 
word  stood  (eVTij)  indicates  a  sudden  appear- 
ance. (See  20:  2G. )  But  the  disciples 
knew  not  that  it  was  Jesus.  Possibly  be- 
cause it  was  not  yet  perfectly  ligiit.  This, 
however,  is  not  the  most  obvious  sense  of  the 
Greek,  for  the  word  translated  but  (/neVToi), 
signifies  yet,  or  nevertheless,  as  if  his  standing 
there  might  have  been  expected  to  secure  his 
recognition.  "The  clause, ■■  remarks  We.st- 
cott,  "is  added  as  something  strange.  It  is 
vain  to  give  any  sitnply  natural  explanation 
of  the  failure  of  the  disciples  to  recognize 
Christ.  After  the  resurrection  he  was  known 
as  he  pleased,  and  not  necessarily  at  once." 
But  was  it  not  natural  for  John  to  recognize 
him  sooner  than  any  one  else  in  the  boat? 
(ver.  7.)  The  ordinarj' and  the  extraordinary, 
the  natural  and  the  spiritual,  wereverj'  closely 
united  in  the  intercourse  of  Jesus  with  his 
disciples  after  the  resurrection. 

5.  Then  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Chil- 
dren, have  ye  any  meat?  They  answered 
him.  No.  Compare  the  Kevised  Version 
above.  Therefore,  (instead  of  then),  implies 
that  John  considered  this  question  a  conse- 
quence of  the  disciple's  failure  to  recognize 


Jesus.  The  question  itself  is  so  constructed 
as  to  anticipate  a  negative  answer— proving 
that  Jesus  either  knew  or  suspected  them  to 
have  been  unsuccessful  in  their  fishing.  The 
word  (itpo(T<^a.yi.ov)  rendered  meat  in  the  Com- 
mon Version,  and  aught  to  eat,  in  the  Kevised 
Version,  signifies  "anything  eaten  with  other 
food,"  as  fish  with  bread.  Here  the  reference 
is  certainly  to  fish.  Westcott  holds  that  the 
original  word  for  children  (-naihia),  "marks 
the  difference  of  age  or  position,  and  not  the 
tie  of  reliition&hip"  ;  but  Grimm  thinks  it  to 
be  used  here  as  a  term  of  endearment,  like  the 
Latin  Carissimi,  or  the  English,  "dearly  be- 
loved." It  is  difficult  to  decide  between  these 
two  tropical  uses  of  the  word.  If  Jesus 
wished  to  be  revealed  by  the  extraordinary 
draught  of  fishes,  he  doubtless  uttered  the 
word  in  such  a  tone  as  to  give  it  the  former 
meaning;  but  if  he  aimed  to  reveal  himself 
by  his  manner  of  addressing  the  disciples,  he 
doubtless  uttered  this  word  in  such  a  tone  of 
voice  as  gave  it  the  latter  meaning. 

6.  Cast  the  net  on  the  ri§;ht  side  of  the 
ship  (or  boat),  and  ye  shall  find.  Their  net 
had  been  on  the  left  side  of  the  boat — of 
course  not  very  far  from  the  place  into  which 
they  were  now  directed  to  cast  it,  3-et  far 
enough  to  make  their  labor  and  watching 
useless.  With  all  their  knowledge  of  the 
lake,  they  were  in  need  of  divine  guidance  in 
order  to  fish  with  any  success.  And  this  was 
a  typical  lesson  with  reference  to  their  future 
work.  They  were  to  follow  the  beckoning 
hand  of  Providence.  If  the  Jewish  S3-na- 
gogue  rejected  the  Christ,  his  gospel  must  be 
preached  in  the  Pagan  school.  They  cast 
therefore — not  yet  indeed  recognizing  Jesus, 
but  yielding  to  the  word  which  he  spoke^ 
and  now  they  were  not  able  to  draAV  it 
for  the  multitude  of  fishes.  Literally: 
They  were  no  longer  able — as  before — to  draw 
it — i.  e.,  to  draw  it  up  into  the  boat ;  for  it  ap- 
pears that  they  drew  it,  afterwards,  in  the 
water,  to  the  shore.  Assuming,  as  we  must, 
the  typical  character  of  this  event,  it  is  plain 


412 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XXI. 


7  Therefore  "that  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  saith 
unto  Peter,  It  is  the  Lord.  Now  when  Simon  Peter 
heard  that  it  was  the  Lord,  he  girt  his  tisher's  coat  tm/o 
him,  (for  he  was  naked,)  and  did  cast  himselt  into  the 
sea. 

8  And  the  other  disciples  came  in  a  little  ship ;  (for 
the3'  were  not  far  from  laud,  but  as  it  were  two  hun- 
dred citWts,)  dragging  the  net  with  tishes. 

9  As  soon  then  as  they  were  come  to  laud,  they  saw  a 
fire  of  coals  there,  aud  fish  laid  thereon,  and  bread. 


7  able  to  draw  it  for  the  multitude  of  fishes.  That 
disciple  therelore  whom  Jesus  loved  saith  unto 
Peter,  It  is  the  Lord.  So  when  .Simon  Peter  heard 
that  it  was  the  Lord,  he  girt  his  coat  about  him  (for 

8  be  1  was  naked),  aud  cast  himself  into  the  sea.  But 
the  other  disciples  caixie  in  the  little  boat  (for  they 
were  not  far  from  the  land,  but  about  two  hundred 

9  cubits  ott),  dragging  the  net  full  of  fishes.  So  when 
th<y  got  out  upon  the  laud,  they  see  -Sl  fire  of 
coals    there,  and  sflsh  laid    thereon,   and    <  bread. 


tell.  13:  23;  20;  2. 1  Or,  had  on  his  under  garment  only 2  Gr.  afire  of  charcoal.... Z  Or,  a  fish,... i  Or,  a  loaf. 


that  the  apostles  were  to  have  great  success  in 
bringing  men  into  the  Ivingdom  of  Christ, 
provided  they  should  carry  forward  their 
work  under  his  direction.  Nor  can  we  sup- 
pose that  this  lesson  was  meant  for  apostles 
only.  It  is  a  lesson  for  all  the  servants  of 
Christ.  The  time  will  never  come  when  they 
will  be  able  to  conquer  the  world  without 
him  ;  the  day  will  never  dawn  when,  directed 
by  him,  they  will  spend  tlieir  strength  for 
nought.  Only  under  the  great  Leader  can 
they  overcome;  but  strengthened  by  his  pres- 
ence thej'  will  go  forth  to  complete  victory. 

7.  How  true  to  all  other  representations  of 
Peter  and  John  are  the  incidentsof  this  verse. 
The  scene  is  brieflj',  but  vividly  sketched. 
The  net  full  of  great  fishes — the  disciples  pull- 
ing in  vain  to  draw  it  up  over  the  side  of  the 
boat — the  true-hearted  John  perceiving  in  all 
this  the  hand  of  his  Lord  and  making  known 
bis  discovery  to  Peter — Peter  recognizing  at 
once  the  truth  of  John's  remark,  girding  on 
his  outer  garment  without  delaj',  and  plung- 
ing into  the  .sea  to  reach  the  shore  and  the 
Lord  as  soon  as  possible : — all  this  is  in  perfect 
accord  with  what  is  said  of  these  two  remarka- 
ble men  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament. 
"When  they  recognized  the  Lord,"  says 
Chrysostom,  "again  do  the  disciples  display 
the  peculiarities  of  their  individual  charac- 
ters. The  one,  for  instance,  was  more  ardent, 
but  the  other  more  elevated ;  the  one  more 
eager,  but  the  other  endued  with  finer  per- 
ception. On  which  account  John  was  the  first 
to  recognize  the  Lord,  but  Peter  to  come  to 
him."  The  comment  that  Peter  was  naked, 
does  not  signify  tluit  he  was  wholly  destitute 
of  clothing,  but  rather  that  he  was  compara- 
tively so,  having  laid  aside  his  coat— the  Greek 
word  here  used  (en-ei'SOnjs),  meaning  properly, 
any  kind  of  over-garment. 

8.  The  boat  in  vMiich  all  the  disciples,  save 
Peter,  remained,  and  came  to  the  beach,  is 
here  called  a  ship,  (or,  little  boot),  and  the 
distance  which  it  had  to  pass  over  to  reach  the 


land  was  about  two  hundred  cubits.  The 
writer  remembers  the  distance,  as  it  could  be 
measured  roughly  by  the  eye,  and  the  time 
occupied  in  rowing  to  the  shore,'and  states  it 
as  exactlj'  as  possible.  There  was  probably  no 
delay  in  starting  the  boat  for  the  shore,  though 
it  did  not  reach  that  point  as  soon  as  Peter. 
Dragging  the  net  with  fishes — literally,  the 
net  of  fishes,  that  is  to  saj',  the  net  full  of  fishes. 
Thus  those  in  the  boat  drew  the  net  after  them 
ill  the  water  until  they  came  to  the  shore,  but 
they  did  not  draw  it  out  of  the  water. 

9.  John  describes  the  scene  as  he  saw  it. 
When  Peter  had  girded  on  his  coat  and 
plunged  into  the  sea  to  go  to  Jesus,  John  re- 
mained in  the  boat  and  gave  his  attention  with 
the  rest  to  bringing  it  ashore  and  dragging 
the  net  after  it.  He  ma3'  not  have  followed 
with  his  eye  the  course  of  Peter,  and,  there- 
fore, he  says  nothing  as  to  his  swimming  or  as 
to-his  meeting  the  Lord.  As  soon  then  as 
they  were  come  to  land,  (or.  So  when  they 
got  out  upon  the  land),  they  saw  a  fire  of 
coals  there,  etc.  The  verb  saw,  should 
rather  be  see,  to  correspond  in  tense  with  the 
original;  for  the  present  tense  is  more  vivid 
than  the  past.  And  fish  laid  thereon,  and 
bread.  With  equal  correctness  this  might 
be  rendered,  a?id  a  fish  laid  thereon,  and  a  loaf. 
Those  interpreters  who  regard  this  meal  as  in 
some  sense  analogous  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
prefer  the  latter  translation.  But  we  doubt 
the  value  of  their  reason  for  this  preference, 
since  other  fish  appear  to  have  been  added, 
and  since  there  is  nothing  said  in  this  passage 
which  points  to  the  food  as  emblematic  of  the 
Lord's  body.  Of  the  word  fish  (6i//aptoi'),  Wat- 
kins  remarks:  "  In  this  passage  and  in  ver.  13 
only  it  occurs  in  the  singular,  but  it  seems 
clear  that  it  may  be  collective,  as  our  word 
"fish."  The  fire  here,  as  in  18:  18.  was  of 
"charcoal"  {ivOpaKCa).  Grimm  defines  the 
word,  strues  prunarum  ardentium — "a  pile 
of  burning  coals."  Observe  the  customarj'  pre- 
cision   or  definiteness   of   John's    narrative. 


Ch.  XXL] 


JOHN. 


413 


10  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Bring  of  the  fish  which 
ye  have  now  caught. 

11  Simon  I'eler  went  up,  and  drew  the  net  to  land 
full  of  great  fishes,  an  hundred  and  fifty  and  three:  and 
for  all  there  were  so  many,  yet  was  not  the  net  broken. 

12  Jesus  sailh  unto  them,  "Come  and  dine.  And 
none  of  the  disciples  durst  ask  him,  Who  art  thou? 
knowing  that  it  was  the  Lord. 


10  Jesus  saith  unto  theui.  Bring  of  the  fish  which  ye 

11  liave  now  taken.  Simon  I'eter  tlierefore  weul  '  up, 
and  drew  the  net  to  land,  lull  of  great  fishes,  a 
hundred  and  fifty  and  three;  and  fiirall  there  were 

12  so  many,  the  net  was  not  rent.  Jesus  saith  unto 
them.  Come  ami  break  your  fast.  And  none  of  the 
disciples  durst  inquire  of  him,  Who  art  thou,  know- 


a  .\cts  10:  41. 1  Or.  aboard. 


Weiss  believes  that  this  narrative  does  not  in 
the  least  suggest  a  miracle,  "since  Peter  was 
already  with  Jesus,  and  on  the  shore  of  a  sea 
alive  with  fishermen,  whatever  was  needed  for 
the  morning  meal  could  easily  have  been  pro- 
cured by  direction  of  Jesus.  That  the  Lord 
himself  prepared  it,  because  he  wished  the 
disciples  to  be  his  guests  at  the  meal,  the  nar- 
rative does  not  at  all  intimate."  But  does  the 
record  suggest  that  Peter  reached  the  shore 
— (a  distance  of  about  three  hundred  feet) — 
very  much  sooner  than  those  in  the  boat?  Or, 
that  the  coast  was  at  that  early  hour  alive  with 
fishermen  ?  Or,  that  the  beach  on  which  Jesus 
stood  was  near  a  city  where  bread  and  fish 
could  be  obtained  at  any  hour  of  the  day? 
All  this  may  have  been,  as  Weiss  supposes; 
but  we  think  it  could  not  have  been  in  the 
mind  of  the  writer  of  this  Gospel,  and  that 
an  unprejudiced  reader  would  at  once  ask, 
Did  not  John  look  upon  these  preparations  as 
accomplish, 'd  by  Jesus  in  a  supernatural  way? 
That  Peter  had  any  share  in  making  them,  is 
quite  improbable.  That  Jesus  may  liave  made 
them  b^'  the  use  of  natural  means,  is  certainly 
credible.  Tiie  real  question  seems  to  be  this: 
Does  the  narrative  of  John,  read  in  the  light 
of  all  that  is  said  by  the  Evangelist  concern- 
ing the  movements  of  Jesus  after  his  resur- 
rection, fairly  imply  at  this  point  something 
miraculous?  We  are  half  persuaded  that  it 
does,  but  leave  the  matter  to  bt  decided  by 
every  one  for  himself — only  calling  attention 
to  the  special  awe  which  seems  to  have  filled 
the  disciples'  minds. 

10.  Bring  of  the  fish  which  ye  have  now 
caught  (or,  taken).  It  is  an  almost  certain  in- 
ference, that  this  was  to  be  done  for  the  pur- 
pose of  adding  some  of  the  fish  which  they 
had  taken  to  those  already  broilingon  the  coals 
of  fire.  But  the  fisli  in  the  net  were  obtained 
by  the  extraordinary  intervention  of  Jesus, 
by  a  miracle  of  knowledge,  if  not  of  power: 
may  not  tlie  same  thing  have  been  true  in  re- 
spect to  those  on  the  fire?    Yet  Weiss  judges 


otherwise:  "Precisely  this  necessary  com- 
plementing of  the  fish  already  found  on  the 
fire  excludes  the  miraculous  or  symbolical 
character  of  the  meal."  At  all  events,  the 
materials  of  that  morning  repast  were  the  gift 
of  Christ  to  the  disciples  as  really  as  if  they 
had  been  created  on  the  spot.  And,  besides, 
it  is  difiicult  to  see  how  the  addition  of  fishes 
cauglit  in  the  manner  described,  excludes  the 
"symbolical  character  of  the  meal,"  even 
should  it  bethought  to  exclude  its  miraculous 
character. 

11.  Simon  Peter  went  up,  etc.  There  is 
sufficient  authority  for  the  insertion  of  there- 
fore after  Simon  Peter,  as  in  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion, thus  connecting  the  act  of  Peter  formally 
and  expressly  with  the  word  of  Christ.  The 
expression  went  up,  refers  to  the  prow  of  the 
boat  as  rising  above  tlie  beach  on  which  it 
rested.  If  the  net,  as  may  be  supposed,  was 
fastened  to  the  stern,  Peter  entered  the  boat 
at  the  prow  and  going  to  the  stern  drew  the 
net  along  side,  until  it  reached  the  shore  and 
was  pulled  out  on  the  dry  land.  Probablj'  he 
was  assisted  by  some  of  the  other  disciples;  as 
the  direction  of  Christ  (ver.  lo)  was  addressed  to 
the  disciples,  in  the  plural.  The  fish  were 
now  counted,  as  John  remembers,  and  num- 
bered one  hundred  and  fifty-three.  They 
were  also  of  great  size,  yet  the  net  was  not 
broken.  When  they  had  been  taken  from  the 
net  and  counted,  some  of  them  were  probably 
added  to  those  on  the  fire,  or  were  broiled  in 
addition  to  them,  and  the  meal  was  ready. 

12.  Come  and  dine.  Rather:  Come, 
breakfast;  that  is,  take  breakfast,  or,  break 
your  fast;  for  the  verb  denotes  partaking  of 
the  morning  meal.  There  is  no  intimation  of 
Christ  eating  with  them,  unless  it  be  in  the 
word  come  (6eOt6),  which  can  scarcely  be  relied 
upon  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  standing  by  the 
food.  (See  ver.  13. )  Great  was  the  r  verence 
as  well  as  the  joy  that  filled  the  disciples' 
hearts.  They  were  afraid  to  question  him 
freely.     Though  they  knew  it  was  the  Lord, 


414 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XXI. 


13  Jesus  then  cometh,  and  taketh  bread,  and  giveth 
them,  and  fish  likewise. 

14  This  is  now  "the  third  time  that  Jesus  shewed 
himself  to  his  disciples,  alter  that  he  was  risen  from 
the  dead. 

15  So,  when  they  had  dinec",  Jesus  saith  to  Simon 
Peter,  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  nie  more  than 
these?  He  saith  unto  him.  Yea,  Lord:  thou  knowest 
that  I  love  thee.    He  saith  uuto  him,  Feed  my  lambs. 


13  iug  that  it  was  the  Lord.  Jesus  cometh,  and  taketh 
the  1  bread,  and  giveth  tlieui,  and  the  fish  likewise. 

14  This  is  uow  the  third  time  that  Jesus  was  mani- 
fested to  the  disciples,  after  that  he  was  risen  from 
the  dead. 

15  So  when  they  had  broken  their  fast,  Jesus  saith 
to  Simon  Peter,  Simon,  wn  of  -John, 'lovest  thou 
me  more  than  these?  He  saith  unto  him.  Yea, 
Lord ;    thou  knowest  that  I  *  love  thee.    He  saith 


a  See  ch.  20:  19.  26. 1  Or,  loaf 2  Gr.  Joanes.    Seecli.  1 :  42,  margin  ....3  4  Love,  in  these  places,  repre.<seDts  two  different  Greek  words. 


they  would  doubtless  have  sought  to  have 
inuny  things  explained,  and  perhaps  con- 
firmed, by  his  word,  if  they  had  not  been  re- 
strained by  a  sense  of  awe  which  made  famil- 
iarity impossible.  He  only  spoke;  they  were 
silent.  Not  a  word  thus  far,  according  to  the 
record  of  John,  had  any  one  of  them  ad- 
dressed to  him,  except  the  monosyllable, 
"No,"  in  answer  to  his  question,     (ver.  5-) 

13.  Jesus  then  cometh,  and  taketh 
bread,  and  giveth  them,  and  fish  like- 
wise. Then,  should  be  omitted  from  the  first 
clause,  as  it  is  wanting  in  the  earliest  manu- 
scripts. (N  B  C  D  L  X  et.  al.).  Before  bread 
and  fish,  the  definite  article  should  be  inserted, 
as  in  the  Revised  Version.  For  thus  it  is  writ- 
ten in  the  original,  and  there  is  no  reason  why 
the  English  Version  should  not  here  be  strictly 
conformed  to  the  original.  It  was  "'the bread" 
and  "the  fish"  already  spoken  of  which  he 
gave  to  them.  The  expression,  Jesus  cometh, 
implies  that  he  was  not  standing  close  beside 
the  food  when  he  invited  the  disciples  to  take 
their  breakfast.  (See  ver.  12.)  But  now  he 
acts  the  part  of  a  gracious  and  friendly  host, 
giving  probably  to  each  one  of  them  his  por- 
tion of  the  food. 

14.  In  saying  that  this  was  the  third  time 
that  Jesus  shewed  himself  (or,  uas  mani- 
fested) to  his  disciples,  John  speaks  of  the 
disciples  as  a  body.  For,  if  we  include  ap- 
pearances to  individuals,  he  has  himself  de- 
scribed three,  which  took  place  in  Jerusalem, 
and  therefore  this  would  be  the  fourth.  But, 
one  of  these  appearances  was  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalene, while  two  of  them  were  to  the  assem- 
bled disciples.  Clearly  enough  he  associates 
this  manifestation  of  himself  to  a  group  of 
his  disciples  with  the  two  similar  manifesta- 
tions in  Jerusalcin,  and  does  not  put  in  the 
same  category  his  appearance  to  Mary. 

In  Luke  5:  1-11  (comp.  Matt.  4:  18-22; 
Mark  1:  16-20),  there  is  an  account  of  a  mirac- 
ulous draught  of  fishes,  which  has  been  sup- 
posed by  some  identical  with  the  one  before 


us.  But  the  events  described  in  this  narrative 
are  diflferent  in  all  essential  points  from  those 
mentioned  by  Luke.  "(1)  Those  took  place 
in  the  early  part  of  Christ's  ministry;  these, 
after  his  resurrection.  (2)  Luke  speaks  of 
two  boats;  John,  of  but  one.  (3)  Luke  says 
that  James  and  John  were  not  in  the  same 
boat  with  Peter;  John  virtually  says  they 
were.  (4)  Luke  says  their  net  broke;  John 
says  the  net  did  not  break.  (5)  Luke  declares 
that  two  boats  were  filled  with  the  fishes 
taken;  John  asserts  that  the  fish  were  not 
taken  into  the  boat  at  all.  (6)  Luke  repre- 
sents Peter  as  falling  at  the  feet  of  Jesus  and 
beseeching  him  to  depart;  John  represents 
him  as  plunging  into  the  sea  to  come  to  Christ 
as  quicklj'  as  possible.  (7)  Luke  relates  that 
Jesus  called  Peter  to  become  a  fisher  of  men  ; 
John,  that  he  directed  him  to  feed  his  sheep. 
(8)  Luke  declares  that  Christ  was  in-the  boat; 
John  asserts  that  he  was  on  the  beach.  Other 
minor  differences  may  be  passed  over  in 
silence,  for  these  establish  be3'ond  a  doubt  the 
distinctness  of  the  two  miracles."  (See  the 
writer's  work  on  "The  Miracles  of  Christ," 
etc.,  p.  44.) 

15>23.  Jesus  Eestores  Peter,  and 
Speaks  of  John. 

15.  The  conversation  between  Jesus  and 
Peter  was  in  presence  of  the  other  dis<!iples. 
This  was  suitable,  if  not  morally  necessary. 
For,  having  boasted  in  their  hearing  of  his 
unconquerable  faithfulness — whatever  others 
might  do,  and  having  afterwards,  in  a  public 
and  cowardly  manner  denied  the  Saviour,  it 
was  fitting  that  his  reproof  and  restoration 
should  be  witnessed  by  some  of  them.  Such 
a  reproof  and  restoration,  so  searching,  and 
yet  kind;  so  thorough,  and  yet  gentle;  were 
a  lesson  nevei*  to  be  forgotten  \>y  those  present, 
and  were  worthy  a  conspicuous  place  in  the 
Gospel  which  reveals  to  us  the  very  "heart  of 
Christ."  Accordingly,  after  the  disciples  had 
breakfasted  (not  dined),  Jesus  saith  to 
Simon    Peter,    Simon,    sou    of    Jonas, 


Ch.  XXI.] 


JOHN. 


415 


16  He  saith  to  hiiu  again  the  second  time,  Simon,  son 
of  JoQiis,  lovest  tliou  me?  He  saith  uuto  Iiiiu,  Yea, 
Lord;  thou  liiiowest  that  I  love  tliee.  "  He  saith  untu 
him,  Feed  my  sheep. 


16  unto  him.  Feed  my  Iambs.  He  saith  to  him  again 
a  second  time,  Simon,  so/t  of  '.Jolin,  ^i^vest  ihou 
me?  He  saith  unto  liim,  Yea,  I.,ord ;  thou  knowest 
that  I  3 love  thee.      He  saith  uuto  him.   Tend   my 


a  Acu  20 :  28 ;  Heb.  13  :  : 


lovest  thou  me  more  than  these?  Instead 
of  Jonas,  the  Revised  Version  lias  John  and 
is  supported  in  niaici|jg  this  change  by  the 
larger  part  of  the  early  manuscripts.  More 
important,  however,  is  it  to  remark,  that 
Jesus  does  not  here  use  the  new  and  honor- 
able name,  Peter,  in  addressing  his  most  con- 
spicuous di.sciple.  There  would  have  been 
too  deep  a  sarcasm  in  ajiplying  that  designa- 
tion now.  For  sincerity,  not  sarcasm,  is 
called  for  when  an  offender  is  to  be  restored. 
So  the  firm  and  wise  and  loving  Master  goes 
back  to  the  old  name,  and  thus  reminds  his 
follower,  without  a  touch  of  bitterness,  that 
his  recent  conduct  is  inconsistent  with  his  new 
name.  To  call  him  Peter,  a  Rock,  in  the  face 
of  conduct  which  seemed  to  prove  him  fickle 
as  the  wind,  would  be  fearful  irony;  to  call 
him  Simon,  son  of  John,  was  sincere  reproof. 
It  is  also  noticeable  that  the  word  lovest, 
(ayan-as),  employed  by  Jesus  in  his  question, 
denotes  a  high  moral  regard  and  attachment, 
in  distinction  from  warm  personal  affection. 
The  latter  was  not  counted  worthless  by 
Christ,  but  the  former  was  what  he  specially 
sought  in  his  followers.  He  expected  to  be 
honored  and  loved  in  view  of  his  divine 
character,  with  an  intelligent,  voluntary  ap- 
preciation. Such  a  love  springs  from  the  very 
source  of  spiritual  life  in  the  soul,  and  is,  in 
the  language  of  Jesus,  "a  well  of  water, 
springing  up  into  everlasting  life."  It  is  an 
expression,  not  of  impulse  or  natural  afi'ec- 
tion,  but  of  the  whole  moral  personality  in  its 
purest  action.  Such  a  love  ought,  then,  to 
overcome  fear,  and  lead  to  the  noblest  self- 
sacrifice.  Clearly,  then,  Peter  had  not  mani- 
fested such  love  in  his  conduct;  will  he  claim 
to  possess  it  now?  Notice  also  the  words, 
more  than  these.  They  are  charged  with 
an  idlusion  to  the  past.  For  Peter  had  said, 
with  boastful  assurance,  on  the  evening  before 
Jesus  was  delivered  up:  "If  all  shall  be 
offended  in  thee,  I  will  never  be  offended," 
and,  "Even  if  I  must  die  with  thee,  I  will 
not  deny  thee."  (Matt.  26:  33,  35,  (Rev. 
Ver. ;  comp.  John  13:  37.)  In  other  words, 
taking  exception  to  his  Master's  prediction: 


.2  3  Love,  ID  ibeae  places  represents  two 

"All  ye  shall  be  offended  in  me  this  night," 
he  had  asserted  that,  if  all  the  rest  should  be 
made  to  stumble  by  anything  that  might  be 
done  or  suffered  by  Jesus,  his  integrity  would 
remain  firm;  his  fidelity  to  Christ  would  be 
unshaken.  Alas,  within  a  few  hours,  he  had 
fallen  lower  than  any  of  them,  and  hail  openly 
denied  the  Lord.  Would  he  now  claim  to 
have  more  true  love  for  Jesus  than  these,  his 
fellow-disciples?  Never  was  a  more  search- 
ing reproof  uttered  in  simple  words.  The 
least  was  said  that  could  be  said,  and  yet  the 
most  was  said  that  could  be  said.  And  what 
was  the  answer  ?  Yea,  Lord,  thou  knowest 
that  I  love  thee.  A  truthful  answer,  no 
doubt.  A  submission  of  the  case  to  Christ's 
own  knowledge,  with  a  virtual  confession  that 
he  had  not  known  himself.  But  at  the  same 
time  he  is  sure  that  Jesus  must  certainly  see 
in  his  heart  a  warm  personal  attachment,  if 
not  the  high  moral  affection  to  which  he  had 
referred.  For,  in  his  answer,  Peter  uses  the 
word  {^iKiia),  which  denotes  personal  affection. 
It  was  well ;  and  the  Lord  saith  unto  him : 
Feed  my  lambs.  These  words  assign  to 
Peter  the  work  of  a  Christian  shepherd,  who 
is  called  to  lead  the  lambs  of  the  flock  into 
green  pa.«tures.  And  the  word  lamb,  may  be 
understood  to  refer  to  the  still  weak  and  im- 
mature members  of  Christ's  flock.  Feeding, 
rather  than  controlling,  is  the  idea  of  the  verb. 
16.  Jesus  repeats  the  same  question  a 
.second  time,  omitting,  however,  the  words, 
more  than  these.  For  Peter's  answer  to 
his  first  question  had  shown  that  this  disciple 
no  longer  thought  his  own  love  stronger  than 
that  of  his  fellow  disciples;  and  therefore  the 
Lord  does  not  repeat  his  allusion  to  his  great 
disciple's  spiritual  egotism  and  vanity.  The 
second  response  of  Peter  is  a  simple  repetition 
of  his  first;  and  is  followed  by  the  command. 
Feed  my  sheep  ;  or,  more  precisely,  shepherd 
my  sheep.  There  is  some  authority  for  a 
Greek  word,  meaning  little  sheep,  in  place  of 
the  word  that  means  sheep.  But  it  is  hardly 
sufficient  to  warrant  a  change  in  the  text. 
The  principal  consideration  in  its  favor  is  the 
fact  that  it  is  an  uncommon  word,  while  that 


416 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XXL 


17  He  saith  unto  him  the  third  time,  Simon,  son  of 
Jonas,  lovest  thou  me?  Peter  was  grieved  because  he 
said  unto  him  the  tliird  time,  Lovest  thou  me?  And 
Le  said  unto  him.  Lord,  « tliou  kuowest  all  things ;  thou 
knowest  that  I  love  thee.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Feed 
wy  sheep. 

18  'Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  thee.  When  thou  wast 
young,  thou  girdedst  thyself,  and  walkedst  whither  thou 
wouldest:  but  when  thou  shalt  be  old,  thou  shalt  stretch 
forth  thy  hands,  and  another  shall  gird  thee,  and  carry 
l/iee  whither  thou  wouldest  not. 


17  sheep.  He  saith  unto  him  the  third  time,  Simon 
.son  of  ijohn,  "-lovest  thou  me?  Peter  was  grieved 
because  he  said  unto  him  the  third  time,  -Lovest 
thou  me?  And  he  said  unto  him,  Lord,  thou 
knowest   all   things;    thou   <  kuowest  that   I    ^love 

18  thee.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Feetl  my  sheep.  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  When  thou  w:ist  young, 
thou  girdedst  thyself,  and  walkedst  whither  thou 
wouldest ;  but  when  thou  shalt  be  old,  thou  shalt 
stretch  forth  thy  hands,  and  another  shall  gird 
ihee,  and  carry   thee   whither  thou   wouldest    not. 


«ch.  2  :  24,  25:  16:30 b  ch.  13:  36;  Acts  12: 


See  ch.  1 ;  42,  margiD 2  3  Ltyve,  iu  these  pluceij,  represents  two 

.  .4  Or,  perceiveat. 


for  sheep  is  very  common;  and  it  is  easier  to 
suppose  a  change  from  an  uncommon  to  a 
common  word  than  the  reverse. 

17.  Again  the  third  time,  Jesus  repeats  his 
question;  but  now  with  an  important  varia- 
tion. For  he  substitutes  the  verb  used  by 
Peter,  denoting  warm  personal  affection,  for 
the  higlier  word  previously  employed  by 
himself.  It  is  this  change  which  appears  to 
have  grieved  Peter;  for  by  it  Christ  seemed 
to  call  in  question  the  genuineness  of  his  per- 
sonal devotion.  If  Peter's  grief  had  arisen 
from  the  repetition  of  the  question  a  third  time, 
John  would  naturally  have  assigned  to  the 
third  time  an  emphatic  position  in  the  sen- 
tence, Peter  was  grieved  because  he  said 
unto  hiin  the  third  time,  Lovest  thou 
me?  But  he  did  not;  and  we  are  tlierefore 
forbidden  to  emphasize  that  expression. 
Moreover,  the  change  of  his  own  word, 
lovest,  for  the  word  persistently  chosen  bj' 
Peter,  is  an  adequate  and  obvious  explanation 
of  the  apostle's  grief.  His  answer  is  now 
strengthened- -Lord,  thou  kiioAvest  all 
things;  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee. 
The  verb  wliich  is  translated  knowest,  in 
the  last  clause,  is  stronger  than  that  which  is 
translated  by  the  same  word  in  the  preceding 
clause.  To  mark,  if  not  to  express,  the  dis- 
tinction between  them,  the  latter  may  be 
rendered,  as  in  the  margin  of  the  Kevised 
Version,  perceivest.  By  his  perfect  knowl- 
edge Jesus  must  see,  or  perceive,  the  love 
which  his  disciple  now  feels  to  him.  Jesus 
accepts  the  answer,  and  says  to  Peter,  Feed 
my  sheep.  The  verb  feed,  is  the  same  as 
that  used  in  verse  15 — Feed  my  lambs. 
And  if  the  word  "lambs,"  in  that  verse  re- 
fers to  weak,  immature  Christians,  the  word 
"sheep,"  in  this  verse,  must  denote  persons 
who  are  more  advanced  in  Christian  life. 
But  there  is  no  evidence  that  apostles  were 
included  among  them  ;  much  less  is  there  any 


evidence  that  Peter  was  now  reinstated  in  a 
sort  of  governmental  primacy  over  all  that 
believe  in  Christ.  All  that  was  said  to  him 
on  this  occasion  was  said,  in  other  words,  to 
Paul,  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles.  The 
special  reason,  however,  for  saj'ing  it  to 
Peter  at  this  time,  was  the  fact  of  his  amazing 
fall — after  which  it  could  Jiot  have  been  easy 
for  him  to  believe  that  the  Lord  would  trust 
him  as  before,  and  allow  him  to  resume  tlie 
leading  place  wliich  he  had  held  among  the 
apostles. 

18.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  etc. 
The  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  preced- 
ing is  obvious.  Having  committed  anew  to 
Peter  his  life-work,  as  an  apostle,  Jesus  sol- 
emnly refers  to  the  personal  issues  of  that 
work.  It  would  lead  him  in  a  path  not  chosen 
by  himself,  and  to  an  end  which  nature  al- 
ways dreads.  In  earlier  days  Peter  had  been 
self-reliant,  and  perhaps  self-willed.  He  had 
been  prompt  in  deciding,  strenuous  in  action, 
preferring  always  to  lead  rather  than  to  be  led. 
But  the  future  would  be  unlike  the  past. 
What  was  possible  then,  will  be  impossible 
hereafter.  The  time  will  come  when  he  will 
feel  the  need  of  direction — when  he  will  in 
old  age  stretch  forth  his  hands  (as  a  blind  man) 
for  guidance,  and  when  he  will  be  girded  by 
another,  and  carried  whither  he  would  not. 
Then  he  will  not,  as  in  former  years,  choose 
his  own  way.  Faithfulness  to  his  Lord  will 
involve  self-denial  and  martyrdom.  There 
seems  to  be  no  special  obscurity  in  this  figura- 
tive language,  unless  it  be  found  in  the  clauses, 
stretch  forth  thy  hands,  and  another  shall 
gird  thee.  But  the  former,  when  applied 
to  an  old  man,  must  naturally  be  understood 
as  reaching  out  the  hands  either  for  support 
or  for  guidance.  The  writer  admits  that  he 
has  seen  it  done  so  often  by  his  blind  grand- 
father with  a  view  to  obtaining  guidance,  that 
this  seems  the  more  natural  meaning ;  per- 


Ch.  XXL] 


JOHN. 


417 


19  This  spake  he,  signifying  "by  what  death  he 
should  glorify  God.  Aud  when  he  had  spoken  this,  he 
saith  unto  him,  Follow  lue. 

20  Then  Peter,  turning  about,  seeth  the  disciple 
*whoni  Jesus  loved  following;  which  also  leaned  on  his 
breast  at  supper,  aud  said,  Lord,  which  is  he  that  be- 
trayeth  thee? 

21  Peter  seeing  him  saith  to  Jesus,  Lord,  and  what 
shall  this  man  do  f 

22  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  «till 
I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee  ?  follow  thou  me. 


19  Now  this  he  spake,  signifying  by  what  manner  of 
death  he   should   glorify  God.     And   when   he   had 

20  siwkeii  this,  he  saith  unto  him.  Follow  me.  Peter, 
turning  about,  seeth  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved 
following;  who  also  leaned  back  on  his  breast  at 
the  supper,  and  said.  Lord,  who  is  he  that  betrayeth 

21  thee?     Peter  therefore   seeing   him    saith  to  Jesus, 

22  Lord,  *  and  what  shall  this  man  do?  Jesus  saith 
unto   him,    If  I   will    that   be   tarry   till  I  come, 


o2Pet.  1:  U....5  ch.  13:23,  25;  20:  2. 


5:  11 :  26;  Rev.  2  :  25  ;  3  :  11 ;  22  :  7  :  20. 1  Gr.  and  thi* 


haps  to  one  who  has  never  had  this  early  ex- 
perience, the  other  reference  may  appear  more 
probable.  The  only  other  tenable  sense  is 
that  of  stretching  forth  the  hands  to  receive 
the  manacles  of  a  prisoner;  but  this  would 
have  seemed  to  require  the  passive,  as  officers 
of  the  law  do  not  usually  wait  for  prisoners 
to  reach  out  their  hands,  but  lay  hold  of  them 
and  applj'  the  fetters  themselves.  The  latter 
expression,  another  shall  gird  thee,  was 
probably  chosen  for  the  sake  of  the  contrast 
which  it  aftbrds  to,  thou  girdedst  thyself. 
Girding  oneself,  denotes  voluntary  preparation 
for  action  ;  being  girded  by  another,  denotes, 
in  this  case,  enforced  preparation  for  death. 

19.  This  spake  he,  signifying  by  what 
death  he  should  glorify  God.  The  Revised 
Version  is  more  exact :  Now  this  he  spake, 
signifying  hy  what  manner  of  death  he  should 
glorify  God.  There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for 
calling  in  question  this  statement  of  the  sacred 
writer,  or  indeed  for  asserting  that  he  has  not 
referred  to  the  deeper  spiritual  sense  of  the 
Saviour's  words.  It  must  first  be  proved  that 
the  deeper,  spiritual  sense  spoken  of  is  clearly 
present  in  the  words  of  Christ.  But  this  ex- 
planation does  not  require  us  to  suppose,  with 
some  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  that  the 
Saviour's  language  pointed  to  crucifixion  as 
the  manner  of  Peter's  death.  It  is  enough  to 
see  in  his  words  a  prediction  of  the  violent 
death  of  Peter  ;  though  we  do  not  wish  to  call 
in  question  the  tradition  that  he  was  crucified. 
And  Avhen  he  had  spoken  this,  he  saith 
unto  him,  Follow  me.  The  next  verse 
implies  that  this  was  spoken  as  Jesus  be- 
gan to  move  from  the  place,  and  that  Peter 
literally  followed  him,  for  a  short  distance,  at 
least.  Whether  the  bodily  act  was  or  was  not 
the  shadow  of  a  spiritual  act,  to  which  the 
words  of  Jesus  pointed,  is  not  wholly  certain; 
but  such  a  reference  is  probable. 

30,  And  now,  as  the  two  were  going  away 


from  the  group  of  disciples,  Peter,  turning 
about,  seeth  the  disciple  whom  Jesns 
loved,  following.  It  might  have  been  ex- 
pected that  John  would  follow  Jesus  whenever 
decorum  permitted.  But  in  this  instance  he 
did  not  intrude  upon  his  Lord's  privacy  with 
Peter,  but  allowed  a  considerable  interval 
between  himself  and  them.  Which  also 
leaned  on  his  breast  at  supper,  and  said. 
Lord,  which  is  he  that  betrayeth  theef 
(13:25.)  "In  the  emphatic  three-fold  refer- 
ence to  this  disciple's  intimacy  with  Jesus,  we 
see  most  naturally  the  reason  why  he  con- 
sidered himself  at  liberty  to  follow,  although 
Jesus  had  called  upon  no  one  but  Peter  to  do 
this." — Weiss.  "John  was  sure  that  nothing 
could  pass  between  Jesos  and  Peter  which 
needed  to  be  concealed  from  himself." — Godet. 
This  is  the  real  ground  for  his  referring  to  the 
expressions  of  Christ's  love  to  him. 

21.  Peter  (read  therefore,  as  in  Rev.  Ver.), 
seeing  him  saith  to  Jesus,  Lord,  and 
what  shall  this  man  do?  More  briefly: 
Lord,  and  this  man,  what?  That  is,  what  of 
him?  Of  his  work,  and  the  manner  of  hi§ 
death  ?  Possibly  the  latter  was  specially  in 
his  mind.  For,  as  the  last  words  of  Jesus  had 
foreshadowed  Peter's  violent  death,  he  may 
have  been  thinking  of  that  more  than  of  the 
work  that  would  go  before  it.  And  his 
thoughts  respecting  himself  may  have  deter- 
mined the  direction  of  his  inquiry  concerning 
John.  This  suggestion  is  favored  by  the 
answer  of  Christ,  which  appears  to  assume 
that  Peter  had  in  mind  the  death  of  John. 
The  idea  that  Peter's  question  sprang  from 
jealousy  is  unworthy  of  serious  attention. 
Peter  and  John  were  faithful  friends,  and  the 
question  of  the  former  respecting  the  latter, 
needs  no  explanation  beyond  what  is  aiforded 
by  the  circumstances  of  the  hour. 

22.  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come, 
Avhat    is    that    to  thee?     These  words  of 


418 


JOHN. 


[Ch.  XXI. 


23  Then  went  this  saying  abroad  among  the  brethren, 
that  that  disciple  should  not  die :  yet  Jesus  said  not 
unto  hiiu,  He  shall  not  die;  but,  If  I  will  that  he  tarry 
till  I  come,  what  U  that  to  thee? 

24  This  is  the  disciple  which  testifleth  of  these  things, 


23  what  is  that  to  thee?  follow  thou  me.  This  saying 
therefore  went  forth  among  the  brethren,  that  that 
disciple  should  not  die;  yet  Jesus  said  not  unto 
him,  that  he  should  not  die ;  but,  if  I  will  that  he 
tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee? 

24  This  is  the  disciple  who  beareth  witness  of  these 


I 


Christ  certainly  imply  his  control  over  the 
duration  of  the  apostles'  lives.  And  if  the 
great  forces  of  nature  were  subject  to  his  will 
in  such  a  manner  that  neither  pestilence  nor 
famine,  neither  human  prejudice  nor  passion, 
could  defeat  his  purpose  in  regard  to  the  apos- 
tles, it  is  easy  to  believe  that  he  is  "Head  over 
all  things  to  the  church."  The  number  of  our 
days  is  with  him.  Amid  the  great  forces  of 
the  universe  Christ  rules.  Peter  must  have 
been  profoundly  moved  by  this  assumption  of 
authority  in  the  realm  of  natural  life,  as  well 
as  in  that  of  spiritual  things,  unless  he  had 
been  previously  convinced  of  his  Lord's  true 
Sonship  to  the  Father,  and  supremacy  over 
the  world.  Again,  the  words  of  Christ  speak 
of  his  "coming,"  as  an  event  certain  in  the 
future.  But  not  in  the  immediate  future.  To 
think  of  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  is  wholly  out 
of  the  question.  For  Jesus  had  already 
spoken  of  Peter  in  language  that  foreshad- 
owed his  martyrdom  in  old  age,  while  this 
passage  implies  that  he  would  not  remain  till 
the  Lord's  coming.  And  when,  in  connec- 
tion with  this,  Christ  suggests  the  possibility 
of  John's  continuing  in  the  flesh  until  he 
should  come,  an  impression  that  his  coming  is 
somewhat  remote  is  unavoidable.  We  may, 
therefore,  conclude  that  none  of  the  apostles, 
save  John,  expected  to  witness  the  coming  of 
their  Lord,  without  seeing  death.  But  if  the 
words  of  Jesus,  though  hypothetical,  and  not 
to  be  interpreted  as  a  declaration  of  his  will 
and  a  prediction  concerning  the  life  of  John, 
are  thought  to  point  in  a  certain  direction, 
and  to  render  it  probable  that  Jesus  meant  to 
preserve  the  life  of  John  until  his  coming — 
that  coming  must  be  looked  for  betweem  the 
death  of  the  other  apostles  and  that  of  the 
beloved  disciple,  and  must  have  been  fulfilled 
in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  regarded  as 
the  tj'pe  of  a  greater  coming  and  judgment 
at  the  end  of  the  world.  (But  see  Note  on  ver, 
23.)  Follow  thou  me.  The  pronoun  thoii 
is  emphatic.  And  it  is  difficult  to  avoid 
giving  a  broad  sense  to  the  word  follow,  in 
this  command — a  sense  so  broad  as  to  include 
the  suffering  of  a  cruel  death,  as  well  as  a  life 


of  true  devotion  to  God  and  patient  service  of 
mankind.  For  this  broader  and  deeper  sense 
grows  out  of  the  context,  and  presents  itself 
to  the  reader's  mind  as  the  only  sufficient 
meaning  for  the  place. 

23.  Then  Avent  this  saying,  etc.  Better, 
as  in  the  Revised  Version  :  This  saying,  thert- 
fore,  went  forth  among  the  brethren,  that  that 
disciple  should  not  die.  The  word  therefore, 
is  preferable  to  then,  as  a  translation  of  the 
Greek  connective.  The  saying  that  sprang 
out  of  Ciirist's  remark,  and  was  diffused 
among  the  brethren,  was  an  inference;  but 
a  natural  one,  provided  Christ  was  to  come 
but  once,  and  all  the  Christians  then  alive  were 
to  be  changed,  without  tasting  death,  as  Paul 
distinctly  taught,  (i  Cor.  is ;  si,  52.)  This,  we  may 
assume,  was  the  general  belief  of  Christians  ; 
there  is  no  ground  for  asserting  that  Paul  dif- 
fered from  others  on  this  point.  Circumstan- 
ces led  him  to  speak  of  it  more  fully  than  it 
was  treated  by  other  apostles,  but  all  held  the 
same  view.  Yet  the  inference,  that  that 
disciple  should  not  die,  is  plainly  regarded 
by  the  sacred  writer  as  illegitimate;  but  to 
show  that  it  was  illegitimate  he  simply  repeats 
again  the  very  words  of  .Jesus.  Those  words 
were  hj'pothetical,  dependent  on  an  if. 
Again,  they  said  nothing  about  not  dying, 
but  only  spoke  of  life  prolonged  till  a  certain 
event  should  take  place.  For  some  reason 
John  does  not  tell  his  readers,  whether  he  does 
or  does  not  expect  to  die— whether  he  does  or 
does  not  recognize  any  event  in  the  past  as  the 
coming  referred  to  by  Jesus.  We  feel  in 
reading  this  verse,  that  he  did  not  regard  the 
Lord's  saying  as  any  proof  that  he  would  not 
die ;  but  if  he  believed  that  the  comfng  re- 
ferred to  took  place  at  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
we  are  surprised  that  he  has  given  us  no  hint 
of  so  important  a  fact.  Indeed,  his  silence  on 
this  point  makes  us  doubt  whether  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  was  ever  more  than  a  faint  tj'pe  of 
the  greater  coming  which  was  principally 
spoken  of  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

34,  25.  Concluding  Statements  About 
THIS  Gospel. 

24.  If  we  suppose  this  verse  to  have  been 


Ch.  XXI.] 


JOHN. 


419 


aud  wrote  these  things:  and  "» we  know  that  bis  testi- 
mony is  true. 

25  'And  there  are  also  many  other  things  which 
Jesus  did,  tlio  which,  iC  they  should  be  written  every 
cue,  '  I  suppose  that  even  the  world  itself  could  not 
contain  the  books  that  should  be  written.    Amen. 


things,  and  wrote  these  things:  aud  we  know  that 
his  witness  is  true. 
25  Aud  there  are  also  many  other  things  which 
Jesus  did,  the  which  if  they  should  be  written  every 
one,  I  suppose  that  even  the  world  itself  would  not 
coutaiu  the  books  that  should  be  written. 


icb.  19:35:  3  Jobnl2. 


.c  Amos  7  :  10. 


written  by  John,  it  is  a  strong  statement  that 
the  disciple  just  referred  to  (ver.  21-23)  is  the  one 
who  is  bearing  witness  by  this  Gospel,  who 
wrote  these  things  by  which  he  is  bearing  wit- 
ness, and  who  is  certain,  from  his  personal 
knowledge,  of  tlieir  truth.  With  this  view 
of  the  passage,  John  speaks  of  himself  in  the 
third  person,  to  which  there  is  no  objection 
worth  naming.  His  modesty  leads  him  thus 
to  speak.  And  the  same  feeling  leads  him  to 
say  Ave  know,  in  the  last  clause,  instead  of  / 
know.  Meyer  supposes  that  he  speaks  '^  out 
of  a  consciousness  of  feUoivship  with  his  read- 
ers, no  one  of  whom,  as  the  gray-haired  apos- 
tle rightly  assumed,  would  doubt  the  truth  of 
his  testim.ony."  On  the  other  hand,  Weiss 
believes  that  this  verse  was  written  by  some 
one  representing  the  Ephesian  elders.  "It  is 
self-evident  that  'the  we,'  can  be  only  such 
persons  as  have  lived  in  fellowship  with  John, 
and  as  have  authority  enough  with  the  read- 
ers to  whom  the  Gospel  went  out  to  secure 
its  reception  through  their  solemn  testimony 
to  its  authorship  and  credibility:  hence  the 
Ephesian  elders  have  been  thought  of  as  the 
writers  of  this  verse."  A  third  view  is  possi- 
ble, namely;  that  the  addition  made  by  the 
Ephesian  elders  is  only  the  last  clause — and 
Ave  know  that  his  testimony  is  true.  "In 
this  case  the  appended  words  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  almost  involuntary  expression 
of  their  confidence  in,  and  admiration  of,  one 
whose  Gospel  differed  so  much  from  the  earlier 
Gospels,  that  some  may  have  doubted  how  it 


would  be  received."  —Schajf.  The  strongest 
reason  for  believing  that  this  clause,  (or,  the 
whole  verse),  was  inserted  by  some  one  be- 
sides the  Evangelist,  is  the  change  from  the 
third  person  in  the  earlier  parts  of  the  verse, 
to  the  first  person  in  the  last  clause;  and  this 
change  is  as  naturally  explained  by  supposing 
the  insertion  to  begin  with  and  we  know,  as 
by  supposing  it  to  begin  with  the  verse. 

35.  And  there  are  also  many  other 
things  which  Jesus  did,  etc.  Again,  as 
in  20:  30,  the  Evangelist  reminds  his  readers 
that  his  narrative  is  an  incomplete  record  of 
the  Lord's  ministry— a  selection  from  a  great 
treasure-house,  which  seems  to  him  inexhaust- 
ible. The  which,  if  they  should  be  writ- 
ten every  one,  I  suppose  that  even  the 
world  itself  could  not  contain  the  books 
that  should  be  written.  A  hyperbolical 
statement,  intimating  the  boundless  variety 
and  richness  of  the  Saviour's  teaching  by 
word  and  deed,  and  suggesting  that  a  com- 
plete record  of  the  same  would  fill  the  world 
too  full  of  books.  And  surely  the  Evan- 
gelist was  correct  in  his  judgment.  Much  as 
we  may  regret  the  brevit3'  of  the  Gospels, 
when  we  are  seeking  to  make  a  complete  pic- 
ture of  the  Lord's  life  on  earth— there  are 
ample  grounds  for  believing  that  for  the  su- 
preme ends  of  religious  impression  we  have 
enough.  Thus  closes  this  wonderful  Gospel, 
whose  depths  of  wisdom  and  love  will  never 
be  fathomed  by  the  sons  of  earth. 


APPENDIX. 


BAPTISM  AS  RELATED  TO  REGENERATION  AND  FORGIVENESS. 

John  3:  5  is  one  of  a  few  passages  on  which  men  have  founded  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration.  Indeed,  it  has  probably  been  appealed  to  oftener  than  any  other  text  of 
Scripture  in  support  of  that  doctrine.  But  with  it  have  been  associated  Titus  3:  5;  1  Peter 
8:  21;  Acts  2:  38;  22:  16;  and  Eph.  5:  26.     These  passages  may  be  divided  into  two  classes. 

(1)  Those  in  which  baptism  is  expressly  named:  Acts  2:  38;  22:  16;  and  1  Peter  3:  21;  and 

(2)  those  in  which  it  is  perhaps  referred  to:  Jolin  3:5;  Titus  3:5;  and  Epli.  5:  26.  Let  us 
begin  our  study  with  the  first  chiss,  wherein  the  ordinance  is  distinctly  named.  In  neither  of 
these  passages  is  baptism  represented  as  a  means  of  regeneration — i.  e.,  of  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  giving  a  new  life  to  the  soul,  (a)  The  first  of  them  reads  as  follows: 
"  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  (or,  upon)  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  unto  the 
remission  (or,  forgiveness)  of  your  sins.''  (Acts  2:  38.  Rev.  Ver.)  Here  repentance  and 
baptism  are  represented  as  leading  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  We  understand  repentance  to 
be  a  voluntary  turning  of  the  soul  from  the  exercise  of  unbelief  to  the  exercise  of  belief, 
and  from  a  paramount  love  of  self  and  sin  to  a  ])aramount  love  of  God  and  holiness;  while 
baptism  is  the  prescribed  symbol,  sign,  or  expression  of  that  inward  change.  Tlie  two  are, 
therefore,  properly  united  in  our  thought;  but  one  as  the  essential,  inward  change,  and  tlie 
other  as  a  divinely  required  confession  or  sign  of  that  change.  This  view  of  the  relation  of 
baptism  to  repentance  or  faith  is  confirmed  by  the  41st  verse  below:  ''They  that  gladly 
received  his  word  were  baptized."  But  there  is  no  hint  in  these  verses  of  any  connection 
between  baptism  and  regeneration  by  the  Spirit  of  God ;  no  suggestion,  even,  that  the 
change  called  repentance  was  conditioned  on  the  rite  of  baptism,  (b)  The  second  passage  is 
a  part  of  what  Ananias  said  unto  Paul  in  Damascus,  after  the  latter  had  received  his  sight, 
and  had  been  assured  that  he  would  be  a  witness  for  Christ  unto  all  men,  thus:  ''  Ai-ise, 
and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  (Acts  22:  16.) 
Of  course  there  is  no  such  thing  possible  as  a  literal  washing  away  of  sins.  A  removal  of 
sins  from  the  soul  by  bathing  the  body  in  water  is  absurd.  But  there  is  such  a  thing  as  for- 
giveness of  sins;  and  this  may  be  described  figuratively  as  washing  them  away,  so  that 
henceforth  the  soul  may  be  "clean"  from  the  guilt  or  stain  of  sin.  Dr.  Hackett  remarks, 
"that  this  clause  {and  wash  away  thy  sins)  states  a  result  of  the  baptism  in  language  derived 
from  the  nature  of  the  ordinance.  It  answers  to  unto  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  in  2:  38— i.  e., 
submit  to  the  rite  in  order  to  be  forgiven.  In  both  passages,  baptism  is  represented  as 
having  this  importance  or  eflScacy,  because  it  is  the  sign  of  the  repentance  and  faith  which 
are  the  conditions  of  salvation."  A  similar  use  of  language  appears  in  the  Old  Testament. 
For  in  Lev.  4 :  20,  26,  31,  35;  5 :  10,  16,  forgiveness  of  sin  is  promised  as  a  result  of  the  proper 
sacrifice  for  sin;  while  in  Lev.  16:  19,  30,  the  presenting  of  the  sin-oflTering  is  said  to 
"cleanse"  the  people  from  sins.  To  forgive  sins  and  to  cleanse  from  sins  were,  therefore, 
substantially  equivalent  expressions.  And  let  it  be  observed  that  Ananias  adds  an  expres- 
sion, calling  on  his  name,  (Rev.  Ver.),  which  agrees  perfectly  with  the  view  that  baptism 
involves  the  idea  of  prayer  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins.     If  baptism  really  signifies  the  change 

420 


APPENDIX.  421 


of  inward  life,  called  "repentance  toward  God  and  faith  toward  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  it 
surely  represents  the  candidate  as  entering  for  the  first  time  upon  a  life  of  prayer  for  pardon 
and  peace,  (c)  The  third  passage  is  more  difficult;  yet  we  believe  it  is  in  perfect  accord 
with  the  two  already  considered.  But  we  are  satisfied  with  neither  the  Common  nor  the 
Revised  Version  of  the  text.  It  may,  however,  be  translated  as  follows:  Which  also  now 
saveth  you  in  its  antitype — baptism,  {not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  earnest 
request  of  a  good  conscience  unto  God),  through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Chi-ist.  We 
give  to  the  word  (eirepoiTTuno)  variously  translated  answer,  inquiry,  seeking,  earnest  seeking, 
requirement,  the  meaning  request,  or  earnest  request,  because  the  verb  (tpwroai)  signifies  to 
ask  a  question,  or  to  ask  a  favor — i.  e.,  to  question,  or  to  request,  and  because  the  compound 
verb  appears  also  to  have  both  these  senses,  though  slightly  modified  in  use.  Hence,  the 
noun  (cTTcpuiTTjua),  which  sometimes  means  a  question  asked,  or  a.  demand  made,  may  naturally 
signify  a  request  made.  Grimm  proposes  to  add  another  definition,  namely,  strong  desire; 
because  a  feeling  of  desire  is  implied  in  the  motions  of  interrogating  or  of  demanding.  But 
the  form  of  the  noun  points  rather  to  a  request  made  than  to  the  feeling  which  might  lead  to 
making  it.  Now  we  have  seen  that  "calling  on  his  name,"  or  prayer,  is  associated  by 
Ananias  with  baptism,  while  "forgiveness  of  sins"  is  represented  by  Peter  as  a  result  of  the 
beginning  of  spiritual  life,  signified  by  baptism.  But  in  this  passage,  baptism  itself  is  spoken 
of  as  an  embodied  request  or  prayer  unto  God.  And  what  can  be  truer  than  this,  if  it  is  a 
symbol  of  repentance,  that  is  to  say,  of  a  change  of  mind  and  heart,  if  it  is  a  sign  and  figure 
of  entering  into  a  new  life?  Is  not  the  first  motion  of  faith  a  beginning  of  actual  trust  in 
God,  through  Christ,  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins?  And  is  not  this  trust  an  implicit  and 
earnest  request  for  that  forgiveness?  Baptism,  therefore,  saves,  because  it  stands  for  and 
means  genuine  reliance,  for  the  first  time,  upon  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  and,  indeed,  an 
earnest  request  for  pardon :  it  expresses  the  act  of  the  soul  in  turning  to  God,  committing 
itself  to  God,  and  seeking  his  grace. 

If  now  we  continue  our  study  by  looking  at  the  other  class  of  passages  cited  above, 
to-wit,  those  in  which  Baptism  is  not  expressly  named,  we  shall  see  that  one  of  them  (a) 
Eph.  5:  26,  repeats  the  idea  of  "cleansing" — (i.  e.,  from  sins)  which,  as  has  been  shown,  is 
sometimes  a  figurative  expression  for  forgiveness  of  sins.  The  passage  is  rendered  as  follows 
in  the  Revised  Version  :  Even  as  Christ  loved  the  church  and  gave  himself  up  for  it ;  that  he 
might  sanctify  it,  having  cleansed  it  by  tfie  washing  (margin,  laver,)  of  water  with  the  word. 
Let  the  reader  observe  (1.)  That  "cleansing"  seems  to  be  distinguished  by  the  apostle  from 
"sanctifying."  This  accords  with  the  view  that  it  refers  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins  upon  re- 
pentance, rather  than  to  the  implanting  of  a  holy  principle  of  life  and  sanctification  in  the 
soul.  The  two  acts  are  doubtless  co-incident  in  time,  but  are  distinguishable  in  fact  and 
thought.  (2.)  That  here,  as  in  the  passages  already  examined,  baptism — in  case  that  is 
meant  by  "the  laver  of  water," — is  used  as  a  sign  or  symbol  of  conversion,  and  is  spoken  of 
as  securing  that  which  is  secured  by  conversion — that  is,  by  the  turning  of  the  soul  to  God  for 
pardon  and  peace.  In  other  words,  the  sign  is  here  put  for  the  thing  signified;  the  ritual  act 
of  confession  is  put  for  the  spiritual  act  which  it  represents.  (3.)  That  an  expression  is  added, 
with  the  v)ord,  or,  in  the  word,  which  directs  attention  to  the  dispensation  or  element  in  which 
this  cleansing  or  forgiveness  is  accomplished.  That  dispensation  or  element  is  thegospel — the 
word  of  divine  grace  in  which  sinners  find  light  and  peace.  It  is  surely  needless  to  justify 
this  meaning  of  the  expression,  but  we  will  refer  to  a  few  passages  where  it  is  illustrated — e.  g., 
Rom.  10:  8,  17;  Eph.  6:  17;  Heb.  6:  5;  1  Peter  1 :  23.  It  is  probably  never  used  to  denote 
the  formula  of  baptism.  (4)  That  the  "cleansing  by  the  laver  of  water"  may  be  a  simple 
figure  of  speech,  founded  on  the  bridal  lustrations  practiced  in  the  East — the  whole  church 
of  Christ  being  thought  of  as  his  bride.  We  do  not  accept  this  as  the  interpretation  most 
likely  on  the  whole  to  be  correct,  but  it  is  certainly  intelligible  and  in  harmony  with  the  con- 
text. At  all  events,  there  is  nothing  in  this  passage  to  show  that  Paul  conceived  of  baptism  as 
the  medium  in  and  through  which  divine  life  is  conveyed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  soul. 

There  remain  two  passages  in  which  alone  baptism  seems  to  be  connected  with  the  work 


422  APPENDIX. 


of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration,  viz. :  Titus  3 :  5,  and  John  3:5.  (b)  The  passage  in  Titus 
is  thus  translated  by  the  Revisers :  But  according  to  his  viercy  he  saved  us,  through  the  wash-' 
ing  (or,  laver)  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  we  understand  the  pas- 
sage it  might  be  literally  translated,  through  a  laver  of  regeneration  and  a  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost: — "a  laver  of  regeneration"  referring  to  the  inception  of  the  new  life  by  the 
work  of  the  Spirit,  and  "a  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  referring  to  the  preservation  and 
development  of  the  life,  already  implanted,  by  the  same  Spirit.  But  whether  "a  laver  of 
regeneration,"  means  a  laver  which  belongs  to  regeneration,  as  its  prescribed  emblem  and 
expression,  or  whether  regeneration  itself  is  figuratively  called  a  laver  of  regeneration  be- 
cause in  and  by  it  the  soul  is  cleansed,  is  not  perfectly  clear.  If  this  passage  could  be  inter- 
preted by  itself,  without  regard  to  other  statements,  we  should  be  ready  to  adopt  the  latter 
view  as  correct,  and  say  that  there  is  here  no  reference  to  baptism.  But  bearing  in  mind  the 
other  passages,  we  accept  the  former  view  as  probably  correct,  and  believe  that  Paul  had  in 
mind  baptism  as  representing  and  confessing  the  divine  change  called  regeneration.  Hence 
he  teaches  that  men  are  saved  by  an  outworking,  obedient  life,  given  and  preserved  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  (c)  The  other  passage,  John  3:  5,  has  been  examined  in  the  Commentary;  but 
we  may  properly  add  a  few  remarks  in  this  place.  (1)  There  can  be  no  reference  in  this  pas- 
sage to  Christian  baptism  in  distinction  from  John's  baptism.  For  neither  this  Gospel  nor 
any  other  gives  us  reason  to  think  that  Christ  had  yet  administered  the  rite  by  the  hands  of 
his  disciples,  or  had  imparted  to  it  Any  spiritual  eiBcacy  which  it  had  not  when  administered 
by  John.  If  then  he  meant  to  speak  in  language  intelligible  to  Nicodemus,  he  must  have 
referred  either  to  John's  baptism,  or  to  a  well-understood  figurative  sense  of  the  term  water 
He  could  not  have  referred  to  a  rite  that  would  begin  to  be  used  after  two  or  three  years.  (2) 
As  an  expression,  being  "born  of  water  and  of  Spirit"  is  clearly  not  sjaionymous  with  being 
"born  of  the  Spirit"  by  means  of  water.  For  by  the  former  the  relation  of  these  two 
sources  of  the  new  life  to  each  other  is  not  pointed  out,  while  by  the  latter  it  is  definitely 
stated.  Taking  the  two  sources  separately,  we  may  saj'  that  being  "born  of  water"  (bap- 
tized), must  signify  being  cleansed  from  sins  or  forgiven;  while  being  "  born  of  Spirit"  can- 
not signify  less  than  being  ingenerated,  if  we  may  use  the  word,  with  a  new  and  holy  prin- 
ciple of  life  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  is  not,  therefore,  surprising  that  Jesus  alludes  to  bap- 
tism in  the  briefest  manner,  while  he  dwells  with  special  emphasis  upon  the  work  of  the 
Spirit.  (3)  We  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  it  is  irrational  to  think  of  "water"  as  holding 
the  same  relation  to  the  new  birth,  as  that  held  by  the  Holj'  Spirit.  A  material  substance 
cannot  be  supposed  to  effect  a  moral  change.  It  may  naturally  enough  signify  a  moral  or 
spiritual  change,  but  that  is  all.  Dead  matter  cannot  be  a  spring  of  moral  power  to  the  soul. 
And  it  is  almost  equally  difficult  to  conceive  of  it  as  a  physicial  medium  of  the  Spirit. 

Having  shown  that  the  principal  texts  on  which  men  have  founded  the  dt.ctrine  that 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration  is  mediated  by  the  water  of  baptism,  need  not 
be  supposed  to  teach  that  doctrine,  we  will  now  look  at  certain  representations  of  Scripture 
which  are  manifestly  inconsistent  with  that  doctrine.  And  we  shall  assume,  for  the  sake  of 
brevity,  that  repentance  towards  God,  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  are  just  as  truly 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  beginning  with  regeneration,  as  is  genuine  love  to  God  or  one's  neighbor. 
(Compare  1  John  5:  1  with  1  John  4:  7.)  The  representations  of  Scripture  to  which  we 
refer,  are  such  as  these:  (a)  John  the  Baptist  not  only  considered  repentance,  and,  indeed, 
"fruits  worthy  of  repentance,"  if  not  also  faith  in  the  coming  Messiah,  to  be  possible  before 
"baptism,  but  to  be  suitable  prerequisites  to  it.  (See  Matt.  3:  6-8;  Mark  1 :  4,  5;  Luke  3:  3, 
8,  13,  14,  18;  Acts  19:  4;  and  compare  John  4:  1.)  (b)  The  apostles,  after  receiving  the 
gifts  of  the  Spirit  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  taught  the  same  thing  as  to  repentance  and  faith 
in  Christ  going  before  baptism.  (Acts  2:  38,  41;  8:  12,  35-38;  9:  15-18;  16:  14,  15,  31-34.) 
(c)  Peter  looked  upon  the  extraordinary  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  Cornelius,  his  kinsmen,  and 
near  friends,  as  conclusive  evidence  that  thej"  might  properly  be  baptized.  (Acts  10:  24,  44- 
48.)  (d)  Paul  represented  the  word  of  the  cross,  or  the  preaching  of  Christ  crucified,  in 
distinction  from  the  administering  of  baptism,  as  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.     (1  Cor. 


APPENDIX.  423 


1:  17,  18,  21-24.)  (e)  Paul  affirmed  that  in  Christ  Jesus  he  had  begotten  the  Corinthian 
Christians,  through  the  gospel,  (1  Cor.  4:  15),  after  saying  a  little  before  that  he  had 
baptized  only  a  very  few  of  them.  (1  Cor.  1:  14-10.)  These  passages  make  it  certain  that, 
according  to  the  teaching  of  John,  of  Christ,  and  of  his  apostles,  the  function  of  baptism  is 
not  to  originate  the  new  life  of  faith,  but  to  represent  the  origin  of  it;  to  portray  and  con- 
fess the  entrance  of  a  human  soul,  through  repentance  and  faith,  produced  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  in  the  light  of  divine  truth,  upon  a  life  of  consecration  and  obedience.  It  is  an 
ordinance  that  takes  the  mind  of  a  believer  back  to  the  moment  of  conversion,  that  he  may 
confess  before  men  the  change  which  then  took  place,  by  the  grace  of  God,  in  his  spiritual 
state.  It  is  the  specific,  the  prescribed,  the  significant  rite,  by  which  he  signifies  that  he  has 
ceased  to  live  in  unbelief,  and  has  begun  to  live  in  faith  and  obedience.  If  any  one  thinks 
it  unimportant,  because  it  is  concerned  in  the  manifestation  rather  than  in  the  origination 
of  the  new  life,  let  him  ponder  the  language  of  Paul:  "If  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy 
mouth,  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  shalt  believe  in  thy  heart  that  God  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou 
shalt  be  saved."  (Rom.  10:  9,  Rev.  Ver.) ;  or  the  words  of  James  :  "Show  me  thy  faith  apart 
from  thy  works,  and  I  by  my  works  will  show  thee  my  faith,"  and  "as  the  body  apart  from 
the  spirit  is  dead,  even  so  faith  apart  from  works  is  dead."  (James  2:  18,  26,  Rev.  Ver.)  ;  or 
the  saj'ing  of  Christ  himself:  "Evf-ry  one  therefore  who  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will 
I  also  confess  before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  (Matt.  10:  32,  Rev.  Ver.)  If  it  can  be 
said  with  Tertullian,  that  "a  sound  or  vigorous  faith  is  sure  of  salvation  "  {fides  Integra 
secura  est  de  salute),  it  can  also  be  affirmed,  that  "  vigorous  faith  "  works  by  love,  and  leads 
to  obedience.  If  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  salvation  of  the  penitent  robber,  without 
baptism,  there  can  be  as  little  doubt  of  his  willingness  to  obey  Christ  in  every  practicable 
manner.  Baptism,  then,  is  a  very  definite  and  important  act  of  obedience  to  Christ,  and 
withal  a  very  clear  confession  of  divine  truth;  but  it  is  prerequisite  to  salvation  only  as 
obedience  to  the  known  will  of  Christ  is  prerequisite. 


'^^ 


>"     ^ 


Date  Due 


"^^^J^n^:^^^ 


2?^li^S^^l^:^?^^^9 


I  I  i  ,  I  '  :  !  I 


